Political shift
Barb Nichols, Member, Emporia Liberty Tea Party
Thursday, January 28, 2010
An earthquake of gigantic proportions has rattled the world of American politics. The epicenter is Massachusetts and the aftershocks that will occur will be felt all across the country come this November.
The people have spoken — loudly and clearly. The election of Massachusetts Republican State Sen. Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, for nearly 50 years, has turned Washington D.C., upside down. Some pundits are now writing the obituary for the health care bill Kennedy had championed that just a short time ago seemed to be a sure thing.
What is nothing short of amazing is the part that has been played by ordinary citizens who have been awakened like the sleeping giant in “Gulliver’s Travels.” This is how the founding fathers intended for a republic with a democratic form of government to work.
Like the original tea party which objected to taxation without representation, today’s tea party groups have organized to object to the takeover of this country by those who have expressed their intention to “fundamentally transform America.” With the mindset of “never letting a crisis go to waste,” a steady barrage of new and unwelcome changes has been forthcoming and a “crisis” in health care has been created.
Many citizens, who never before had been involved in political protests of any kind, suddenly became alarmed and joined the chorus of angry voices demanding to be heard by those they had hired to represent them. The arrogant response by many of those representatives to large numbers of citizens, both young and old alike who expressed their frustration at the many tea parties and town hall meetings, only fueled the anger.
The first seven words of the United States Constitution read “We, the People of the United States.” It is We, the People who are in charge, and those elected to office work for us not the other way around. And we will no longer put up with an arrogant electorate that ignores our wishes and tries to force down our throats legislation we have made clear we do not want.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the federal government has usurped powers that have not been given to them. The amendment reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution lists the limited powers assigned to the federal government.
A citizen’s effort to return power to the states has taken root and is growing in intensity in a number of states including Kansas. On Jan. 15 a Senate judicial committee in Topeka heard testimony regarding SCR 1615, which puts Congress and the president of the United States on notice that the State of Kansas affirms its authority to govern as established under the United States Constitution and proclaims the federal government exists for the benefit of the states and not the other way around.
It is now on the Senate calendar for Monday, Jan. 25.
Although it is extremely important that we, the people, be continually watching what our elected officials are doing on both the federal and state level, we must also pay close attention to what our local elected leaders, such as school board, city council and county commissioners, are doing and make ourselves heard when we disagree.
A perfect example would be the action taken by our local school board at the December 2009 meeting as reported in The Gazette and the minutes of that meeting. The board voted to join the lawsuit instigated by numerous other school boards across the state. This lawsuit was filed against the Legislature demanding that more funds be appropriated for education.
Taxpayers’ money is being spent to file a lawsuit against the taxpayers at a time when the state of Kansas is in severe financial trouble. To quote one lawmaker “the state of Kansas is broke.” This is why we must be constantly watchful of those we have given the power to govern.
If we neglect our responsibility as citizens to pay attention to what our government is doing, we will lose the freedoms that we all cherish. Freedom is not free. The price of freedom is constant vigilance. We must be willing to pay that price or forever regret it.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
reddog (anonymous) says...
Great story and stayed tuned. This is grass roots at it's best.
January 28, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Wow guess they had an earthquake in NY-21 as well with Hoffman... upsets are upsets, not earthquakes. Interesting how these Tea Party folk mysteriously appeared in the last year, when the very things they protest against has been going on for quite awhile.
January 28, 2010 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (anonymous) says...
Two Million Tea Party folks marched on Washington while the main line media played it down. These people are doing something positive to save the Republic and the whole world is taking notice. LET'S FACE IT--THEY HAVE THE EMPIRE ON THE RUN.
January 28, 2010 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Where was the Tea Party when Bush was wrecking America?
January 28, 2010 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (anonymous) says...
Third parties always spring up when people get fed up with the one party system. Do you think the big international bankers care who is elected? As long as they can get the left to fight the right, they can laugh all the way to the bank. Go to the Rockefeller File Gary Allen. Another good site is Carroll Quigley Hope and Tradgey. Another very good one is Alex Jones The Fall of the Empire.
January 29, 2010 at 1:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I don't remember one tea bagger having one tea party or posting one scream about earthquakes when this entire country was pushed under the bus for eight long years of true arrogance. Amazing!
What positive thing are the tea baggers doing? Carrying signs showing off what racists they are in D.C.?
Yes, the media did indeed cover that march on Washington. I saw all the signs. Are you blind? You didn't see what those racist idiots were doing -- carrying nooses? Wearing white hoods? Using the N-word?
Incredible!
January 29, 2010 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
Come on create, the people you are talking about were not teabaggers, that was Nancy Polosi and Harry Read wearing those white hoods and using the n-word. But it's ok, you see if they do it its just praise for the light skinned black president who sometimes speaks with a negro dialect. you need not worry yourself to much. Our government is in very capable hands.(LOL)
January 30, 2010 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Ah, yes racism is alive and well in the good old U.S.A. and will eventually be the downfall of this Country.
Tea Baggers, Ha. Tea Radicals, Maybe. Just plain Tea Kooks, Possibly . Common Sense, Ummmmmmmm, no comment .
By the way, would someone please go to the following site and point out which of the Tea Bagger definitions best describes a Tea Bagger. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define...
January 31, 2010 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
OOOOps. Sorry about that, Tea Baggers and Tea Party are not the same thing ! Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry . Please disregard my previous post about Tea Baggers .
January 31, 2010 at 12:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
However referring to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as Teabaggers is not very nice either ! Better look up the definition of Teabagger before referring to anyone as a Teabagger .
January 31, 2010 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
create
Going to the site I posted for Tea baggers may not be a site for a proper lady or person to visit . Guess I am not a proper person, oh well .
January 31, 2010 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Boy, hope I don' t get kicked of the forum for the Tea Bagger web address I posted .
January 31, 2010 at 12:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
methusia, I haven't figured out yet if your the giver or the taker in those teabagging scenarios. My guess is your the taker. By the way, i have been told that it is your personal circumstance that these definitions work with animals also.
January 31, 2010 at 12:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well I'm certainly glad to see my opinion of geoffreym was not misplaced...Let me see....I think I put it right down there at the bottom of the toilet bowel. You sir are disgusting.
I had my finger on the suggest removal trigger twice...but I decided to leave it up so everybody can get a good look at you and your kind. Now I can't wait to see what cheap shot you will conjure up to use on me. That is obviously the only weapon you posses.
Once again proves you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
January 31, 2010 at 4:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
Hey Buisquitboy, I'm disgusting? Maybe you ought to go look at the website before you open your mouth. Then if you approve , we;ll know just what part of the toilet bowl you are.
Better yet, why not go out and try a couple of these web sites for easy reading.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...
When you get done reading, maybe then and only then you will know why we kicked the British out and how it appears this Government is trying to do many of the same things to us.
Go ahead Biscuit boy, Compare Methusia website with the kind I read. Then you can hit the" suggest removal" button because thats what people like you do when faced with the real truth. You want to silence them.
January 31, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
Hey Biscuit boy, try this one . It's called the Gettysburgh Address. Some famous guy made it a long time ago.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
January 31, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
Hey Buiscuitboy, point and click might be a bit much on sunday morning for you the scholarly types so I'll just include this for your reading.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
January 31, 2010 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
Health care did need to be reformed and still does, and I am a registered Republican, not someone from the far left. Obama made a fatal error on reform when he insisted on imposing deadlines and doing to all at once, rather than pick issues there was agreement on and dealing with it a piece at a time. He thought because the Dems controlled both houses he could ram it down the oppositions throat, didn't work, now I am betting it is dead.
The writer of this editorial brings up a very valid point, you need to pay just as much attention to state and local politics as national. The move by school districts to sue the state for more money is ill advised I think, it at least leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. The taxpayers of Kansas are having the squeeze put to us, there is no reason school districts should feel exempt from the harsh economic times nearly all of us are experiencing. There is not a huge pile of money somewhere that is being hidden from schools. Administrators can say whatever they want about how tough they have it, but most make way more money than the average Kansan, and it would appear to many that quite a few school districts(including Emporia) are rather top heavy with administration. One thing is certain,you can't get blood out of a turnip, in this case the turnip is the taxpayer. The same school district that votes to put up a huge sum of money for new athletic facilities now is pleading poverty and wants to sue the state for more money, when the taxpayers are already being drained? Time to dump a school board and superintendent, and then find some administrators who are more in tune with the economic realities of today.
January 31, 2010 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Get a life geoffryem. So you can read...So can I.
I have been acquainted with American History since I was in public schools. I also went to college and graduated Magna Cum Laude so don't try pulling your bogus intellectual garbage on me. My beef with you is your complete inability to conduct any type of debate without resorting to personal attack and innuendo. And what really makes me angry about that is to respond to people like you I am forced to stoop to your level.
I did read the link methusla posted. My guess is what really sat you off was the unkind things is said about people like you more so than the sexual innuendo you then tried to use to attack methusla on a personal level. Your animal statement was the icing on the cake.
So you quote the New Testament from memory if you like...my opinion of you remains where it started.
January 31, 2010 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
geoffreym
My whole implication for posting the site, was to make people who degrade other people by referriing to them as " Teabaggers " without knowing the meaning of the word, actually see what the word means and I will not even mention the disrespect of the President, no matter what his/her sex, color of skin, manner of speech or how long they have held the post, etc..
As for the " Declaration of Independence ", that was directed at the British, during a time of wanting independence from the rule of a British Monarchy. The Gettysburg Address was directed at those who were, in essence trying to destroy the U.S. for their own selfish goals and they came close to succeeding .
You as a Tea Party advocate, are disatisfied, as we all are, in the direction the country has gone and the way the country has been governed during the " LAST ADMINISTRATIONS REIGN OF POWER " , which was the Bush Administration Era and was the era when the down hill slide of the country really gained momentum. But to lay the blame for the woes of the country on a President who has only been in office for one year, is just plain Idiotic. I say, give the man and his ideas a chance to work. Oh, and I am neither a Tea Partyer or a Tea Bagger, I am just dissatisfied/disgruntled American !
Do you as a Tea Party advocate have any preference as to which of the existing Political Partys or possibly someone in mind that would be best in or do the best job of guiding the country and its people in a manner that would be satisfactory to or for everyone ?
January 31, 2010 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy
I like you believe that it was not the sexual inuendo that set geoffreym off on his ranting attack and I wish I had taken the sexual inuendo part of the post out, but did not and that is my fault. I also wish to congratulate you on graduating from college, Magna Cum Laude. I wish many times, I would have had the oppertunity to finish my college education, but alas I never really got the chance to do so. I have pretty much self-educated myself over the years.
January 31, 2010 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Methusla....
You certainly have and that is the hardest way to do it. Learning is a life long process...and anybody that thinks they already know all they need to know really doesn't know much of anything.
I once read of a very wealthy oil widow in Texas...I so wish I could remember her name. She had spent the later years of her life giving away million and millions of dollars to people and causes she felt were deserving. She said she hoped the very last check she writes bounces on the day she dies.
Well I see my death as the last chance I will have to learn something new.
January 31, 2010 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh yah, well you're a a a doo doo head!
IT WOULD BE NICE if these threads could go on for a while without name calling and personal attacks. BORING but nice.
I've been guilty of it in the past, but am trying to stop.
Sometimes these things sound like 3rd graders on the playground.
We can all agree NOT TO AGREE on everything.
Can we all agree to try to keep our disagreements civil?
Oh wait a minute, what am I saying?
Never Mind!
I'm so conflicted.
January 31, 2010 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit, sorry your post got in there before mine.
January 31, 2010 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And you are a doo doo--doo doo head so there Steve. :-)
January 31, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Come on biscuit, I've already been given the moniker "RICHARD NOGGIN" years ago, I prefer it to do do do do head:-)
January 31, 2010 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
alfalfa, I agree with you when you say that "Health care did need to be reformed and still does, and I am a registered Republican." I'd like to see both sides of the aisle just sit down and listen to each other, and listen intently not just pretend to listen then back bite afterwards like they did this past week. I'd like to see them really work hard by putting this health reform idea into different pieces first, then work on those pieces one step at a time. I suppose I'm asking them to make a quilt. It's not impossible. I don't like this rushing.
Someone said recently that one reason small business is not hiring right now is because they are waiting to see what happens with the health care reform scenario first. Perhaps that is why all the rushing.
I heard Senator Mitch McConnel say this morning that Americans want spending reduction. I wonder if he knows that schools are closing all over this country; we are seeing three schools (four if you count Admire) going through the throes of spending reductions right now with the huge budget cuts handed them by the state. I don't know what McConnel wants here.
Yes, you are definitely right about top heaviness in the school district here. I honestly believe that the state will get to the point that school districts all over this state will have to be reduced to large districts, perhaps 5 or 6. If 5, then all of western Kansas would become one district. Plus, small area school boards need to be a thing of the past. Perhaps then we will move toward a more conventional view of education for all of Kansas, not each and every small district. Put all 5 districts on a cafeteria plan that says, "this is a list of what you can have. Choose from that list." Period. All districts will buy desks, for example, from one provider who will offer a huge discount for buying trainloads of desks. If your school needs 100 new high school desks this year, put in your order then send your people with a truck to get the desks. How about team jerseys all be one style, only colors will change.
Okay, now I will wait for the flogging of create to begin because I have destroyed capitalism and promoted a socialist view of school purchasing. Hey, I'm just trying to save money here.
January 31, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevy_Guy (anonymous) says...
Speaking of dumb arguments, last night I was googling the words "Emporia Gazette" and "attacking" and came across this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/...
It looks like some Emporians found each other and had a few things to say about our town. And it's not every day you get to see some AT-AT's photoshopped into Shawnee Mission South's parking lot on a foggy morning.
January 31, 2010 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
BTW, I was unaware of the double entendre involved when I used the term "tea bagger." I apologize for having insulted anyone with that term. I suppose some people run around in different circles than I do.
January 31, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thanks a lot, Chevy_Guy. Just what I needed to complete my view of an idiocracy.
My new word!
January 31, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create,
have you seen this?
Idiocracy is a 2006 comedic film, directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph.
The film tells the story of two ordinary people who are taken into a top-secret military hibernation experiment that goes awry, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated into a dystopia where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a uniformly stupid human society devoid of individual responsibility or consequences.
Despite its lack of a major theatrical release, the film has achieved a cult following.
Taken from wiki
January 31, 2010 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Chevy _Guy
That site you linked.....now there were some intellectual giants there. And they were putting us down.....jeeez!
January 31, 2010 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
steve
What time period was that movie set in....2010?
January 31, 2010 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit, have you seen the movie? I think the year was supposed to be 2505, but I'm Not Sure:-)
After reading Chevy_Guys link I am really NOT SURE;-)
January 31, 2010 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
No buddy I haven't...but after reading Chevy's link 2010 sounds plausible.
January 31, 2010 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
LOL you biscuit and steve. I was about to ask if it was 2010 set in that place from chevy's link.
No Steve, for real, I haven't seen the movie. Shucks, I thought I had coined a new word.
January 31, 2010 at 8:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Here's the trailer for the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQun...
Looks funny
January 31, 2010 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevy_Guy (anonymous) says...
Here's the full movie. http://www.bigvidpro.com/?v=KxB7CoslJ...
January 31, 2010 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Hey, wasn' t Mike Judge the creator of " Beavis and Butthead " ?
January 31, 2010 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Man, that movie, " Beavis and Butthead do America " was hilarious .
January 31, 2010 at 11:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, at least it's nice to see people complaining about disrespecting the office of the president, as well they should. As has been stated, interesting how they "mysteriously appeared in the last year, when the very things they protest against has been going on for quite awhile."
Perhaps therein lies the answer to that question as well.
February 1, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I find it interesting the writer sited the 10th Amendment as proof of a government overstepping its bounds. This tactic has been tried and it seems it is usually countered with the following. Which I interperet to mean, once the government becomes involved in something, they can legislate that something. Thereby trumping states rights. Making the Congress the most powerful branch(imo) and the growers of this goverment.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“ The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof ."
The tea party movement is great at research that supports their claims, but don't seem to even be aware that information counter to their claims exists.
I've read the constitution all the way through five times maybe six in my life and I can't tell you everything that is in there or how it applies on many issues. Aside from the Bill of Rights I try not to site it in any argument.
The Elastic Clause is pretty well known though.
February 1, 2010 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome (who is pretty far left - and admitted he watches O'Reilly every night) said this on O'Reilly last night:
"I think there's a populist upheaval happening in this nation. I think, and I've said this before, that we reject the tea party populism at our own peril as Democrats. There's extreme elements there, they're rightly being shown the door, but I think generally people are frustrated and concerned - alot of Independents out there that are not idealogical, Republican or Democrat, but are concerned about our fate and future, and I think it's wise for us to pay some attention to them."
February 2, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I think Newsome is on the right track in noting the frustration and concern that is afoot in the land...and people are definitely concerned about our fate and future as he put it.
He's also right that much of it has a populist ring to it.
To the extent that some of the concerns of the tea party folks are concerns that I share...one might say I was a tea partier...but that would only be by ignoring many of the uglier aspects of the movement that I find untenable. I still believe that the majority of Americans side neither with the far right or the far left.....but the agenda of the nation sure seems to be driven by those extremes at the moment. I wait for the day when the middle takes the country back from the fringes....that will be the day I will be happy about politics again.
February 2, 2010 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That notion sounds fine but it didn't seem to stop any of the anti-Bush crowd the last few years from jumping on the bandwagon only if they ignored many of the uglier aspects of the movement that they found untenable.
Apparently they didn't find any of the many, many ugly aspects of that untenable at all. From what I saw back then and remember quite clearly the extremes seemed to have a larger and more accepted following than the extremes do now. At the very least they sure got a different treatment by most of the press.
February 2, 2010 at 10:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Freaking A man when are you going to stop with the "oh poor Bush" ? You made your point, I agree with most of what you said but you always go back to this. Let me remind you that Bush was in office for quite some time before "the extremes seemed to have a larger and more accepted following than the extremes do now"( I quantify that with people in his own party going to said extremes, it is expected from the opposition). Let me also remind you that there was no Tea Party approx the time when Bush left office, why? At the time he had the monopoly on record deficits. The people of this country felt betrayed by him, and they also felt like he disregarded everything they said as well. Obama has been in office for a whole year now, should there even really be a comparison at this point yet? Frankly I am amazed we HAVE a comparison at this point already given the time it took with Bush, that alone speaks volumes to me. This nation was in FAR worse shape fiscally than when Bush took over, I am not happy with all of what our President does, but I don't expect the guy to work miracles either given the circumstances. Bottom line, we all understand things go both ways and there is a flip side to every argument, given that the demographic reading this newspaper is conservative based I am confident you don't even really need to defend the guy.
February 2, 2010 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I could respect Tea Party a lot more if I saw a few "Hitler Bush" signs mixed in with "Hitler Obama" signs, at least they would be consistent LOL.
February 2, 2010 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Perhaps when Freaking A man people stop lumping all tea party people in with the few extreme nutjobs that appear in each and every protest crowd and quit referring to them all as "tea baggers" - for those who know what that implies. If someone as far left as Newsome has enough IQ in his pinky to at least recognize that then maybe it should be a little easier for some of the more brilliant here to also do the same.
I did go on at length in reply to you on another thread - quite respectfully - my opinion as to why we see the tea party movement now and not before. Didn't really get much or any response as to agreement or disagreement from anyone.
I think you have quite a few good points - people did feel betrayed, and disregarded. But he was on his way out. What was the point? And I will remind you that the many, many war protests were often focusing on the cost of the war as well. If that isn't a complaint about what the government is spending its money on I don't know what is.
I guess maybe the Tea Party folks should mix in a few more "Kill Obama" and hang him from nooses more often - if you want them to be consistent. But I'd rather they wouldn't. If it was up to me every person at a Tea Party protest that had a sign of that type would be quietly taken aside and have the crap beaten out of them. I wouldn't do something as mild as waterboarding. But that's just me. ;-)
I also think that people that people that were upset and stated so about all the Kill Bush signs have every right to get riled about Obama protestors that go over the line now. And those that were silent the whole time ought to continue to keep their yap shut on that subject of disrespecting the President. As you said - "why suddenly now"?
February 3, 2010 at 12:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
No he was not on his way out when the public turned on him, his approval ratings midway through 2005 hit the low 40's and only kept going down from there. The point is that the public felt betrayed by the administration for lying about the reasons to go to Iraq, then repackaging it into something else. People were upset because he sent soldiers to their DEATH for nothing. Personally I tend to think death trumps money, buts that's me.
I can recognize what the Tea Party message is, I agree with some of their points, what I do not agree with is the way business gets conducted. When I see them putting on a convention charging $500 a head it just does not feel at like a populist event, certainly a disconnect with the average joe on that one. I also see Glen Back affiliated with them a lot, and frankly the guy is interesting at time but he also flat out lies too much for my taste. Lastly I just don't see that many minorities marching with these folks, this puzzles me because traditionally hispanics poll pretty well with conservatives until recent years, I figured on some support there but the rallies I see it is mostly white people, which combined with the idiots, and mix in a few racists, well you do the math on that one.
As I said before, lets see some "Hitler Bush" to go with the "Hitler Obama" signs to keep BOTH sides honest and accountable which I think is the message they WANT to convey, but somewhere along the line they lost sight of it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I did give my opinion on why now and not then in the thread you mentioned, perhaps the forum Nazi's removed it. But we can pick that scab again if you like, it is relevant here.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, his approvals nosedived in 2004-2005. And we saw plenty of protests. They were about the war..... but they were out there, and they were protesting often, loud, and long. The focus was different, but it was there. So protests didn't "just start" with Obama. Just a different focus. As for the current focus..... we weren't in a recession, unemployment wasn't at 10%. That didn't start nosediving until late in his last year, when the mortgage crisis hit. TARP hadn't happened yet, the porkulus bill hadn't happened yet. Bush definitely shares blame with that, as does Clinton and the GOP congress that built this mortgage house of cards long ago. Maybe they should also have Clinton/Hitler signs? I've posted links often to plenty of "Hitler Bush" signs during the last few years - do you really need me to repost the link? He isn't the President now - so why would they? I rarely see alot of protests against former Presidents after they are out of office.
And if you think it's all about Obama and nothing but Obama, here's a video clip of a GOP Rep that voted for TARP being booed off the stage at a Tea Party rally. (I've also posted links and videos of minorities that were actually organizers of tea parties and performers at them - but of course MSNBC will be very careful to show you none of that ;-)
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/18...
Personally, I don't agree that the war was for NOTHING. Nor do many others. Including many of those that are there actually doing the fighting. But that is our opinion and we will continue to disagree. A bad decision in hindsight, ill-advised? There we might find some common ground. But I don't believe for nothing.
I could recognize and agree with some points of anti-Bush protests, and did not agree with the way that "business got conducted" either. I guess to put it more simply....... EVERY group, every protest - always brings out its share of crazies from the fringe. If you didn't let some crazies attaching themselves to a movement bother you before........ then why are you letting it bother you now?
I'd also like to point out the inaccuracy of your claim that Bush "had the monopoly" on record deficits. It's meaningless to look at it as a pure dollar figure, as we have discussed before, any economist will tell you it is a percentage of a countries GDP that is more meaningful. I mean a deficit that would be considered mild for us would comletely bankrupt smaller countries with smaller GDP's. I'd consider a $100 billion deficit tiny these days but 100 years ago that would have ruined the country. We had much higher levels pre-1920 and in the 1940's.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/f...
Or even more recently under Reagan-Bush I:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-20...
February 3, 2010 at 1:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What I find most bothersome about your mantra open_eyes is that it turns all questions and debate back to the one single point that can never be clearly won by either side. We have all witnessed the abuses on both sides. Some of us have reacted to some of those abuses. I personally apologize that I lacked the forethought to be posting here back during the Bush years so I could now post links to prove my opposition to the excesses that were occurring then...Oh well...
But every time any one even mentions some of the current excesses....frequently occurring at the meetings held by devotees of the movement they themselves named tea parties....here you come with the same old song and dance. Net result....the discussion turns right back to my side...your side.....arguments which is akin to debating whether or not the glass is half full or half empty....kind of a waste of time.
I believe that is the point goodoleboy was trying to make earlier. I apologize for trying to speak for you goodoleboy and hope that I have restated your position accurately. If not I am sorry.
February 3, 2010 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Infighting is already a large problem with the tea partiers. Since they can't even get along with themselves, how can this group possibly come up with a platform? They have no credibility. It's a waste of time to even consider them.
February 3, 2010 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I went to one of the first tea parties, I realize I have a limited perspective, but I did not hear or see a racist under or overtone. I was therefore surprised and offended when followers of this movement were all labeled racist.
Lately I have taken to browsing some left wing sites like the Huff post. Ridiculing Christianity is standard fare there, if you call them on it you are met with "that is just a fringe element". So, the racist movement in the tea partiers, could that just be a fringe element?
My observation is the left is just as biased and combative as the far right. I am concerned about most of the issues the tea party folks are concerned about. At this point they may be somewhat disorganized, but at least they cared enough to start fighting back.
You can read in this very newspaper just how harsh the effects of this economy are, by looking at the various budget problems area schools are having. The federal government was ready to swoop in and help Wall Street and the major auto makers, in response we are seeing a whole new round of massive bonuses among this nations elite. Chrysler and Chevy showed their gratitude to the American people and loyal dealerships by yanking the franchises on 2000 of them once Uncle Sam gave them a hunk of taxpayer cash.
The anti-tea party crowd always bellyaches "where were they when Bush was President??". While many had suspicions, we really didn't have it driven home to us just how bad things were until the very end of GWs reign.
There can be no doubt some of the tea party movement is driven by a personal dislike for Obama, and some of that is racial. But to dismiss the entire movement is a mistake by the left, and right. Our federal government on both sides of the aisle stinks to high heaven, and unless the course of this nation is changed, I fear we are sailing into oblivion. That seems to me to be the main message from the tea party crowd.
February 3, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I really hope the “Tea Party” becomes a viable third political party with candidates competing for local, state and national seats in the legislature and executive branches of government.
February 3, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And that is the point I try to make given by both biscuitboy and alfalfa. Every protest - every movement - every group of people - is always going to have people that are there who are motivated by different things. And there are always some who don't belong there. And some who are "out there". So during the war protests...... most of the media focused on the main message, and (as the CNN reporter did) - ignored the fringe for what they rightfully were - nutjobs. (Even though they seemed to make up a larger percentage of the group than now, at least so far). Now we have another movement brought about by dissatisfaction of the actions and policies of those in power - and we seem to be taking the opposite approach (much like the same CNN reporter) - we focus on the fringe nutjobs and try to discount the whole movement or point of the movement. I'll give credit where credit is due - Newsome put it in pretty good perspective. But often...... the only way, or the best way, to make that point or bring it to light..... is to point out the flip side of that coin. The point doesn't ever seem to get any traction if you just point it out by itself. But maybe if you point out the same thing was treated differently by the same people or the same media a short time ago...... people are more likely to stop and look in the mirror. Sometimes I don't realize what I'm doing or how I'm sounding until I hear someone else say the same thing and I hear how it comes across to me. And when someone points out to me that's the same thing I was saying only the mirror image of it.......... then it sinks in.
There's no doubt alot of protests against Bush were purely driven by a personal dislike of Bush or the GOP. And I decried and despised those that went over the line. But I never discounted their right to protest something they did not believe in, agreed with some parts of it to a degree as time went on, and tried very hard to not lump the whole of them in with the trash hanger-ons.
Just asking people to do the same now.
I remember the discoherence and infighting among the Democrats in 2002-2003. And I've seen the cracks and infighting that have appeared currently both on health care, terrorist trials, spending, etc. I hope nobody considers it a waste of time to consider them. I fear one party dominance by either party. Which in itself says...... we need some differing opinions to make the machine move. Or at least keep it honest and responsive to we, the people. (Well, as much as it can be, anyway - I realize how silly it is to use the words "honest and responsive to the people" in any discussion about politicians ;-)
February 3, 2010 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I've posted links often to plenty of "Hitler Bush" signs during the last few years - do you really need me to repost the link?"
------------------------
If you have any at Tea Party rallys, link them. But it still makes 0 sense to me how we can jump on Obama a year in like we did Bush after 8. Can't get past that one.
"He isn't the President now - so why would they? I rarely see alot of protests against former Presidents after they are out of office."
---------------------------
I've seen a few Clinton signs over the years.... And Bush shoulders a great deal of the burden for the fiscal mess we are in, why not include him? It would sure go a long ways to their credibility.
"Personally, I don't agree that the war was for NOTHING. Nor do many others. Including many of those that are there actually doing the fighting. But that is our opinion and we will continue to disagree. A bad decision in hindsight, ill-advised? There we might find some common ground. But I don't believe for nothing."
-------------------------------
Yes it was for nothing, it was for WMD's that did not exist, then to overthrough Saddam, then to liberate a people, etc. It has evolved over and over again. Personally I think our soldiers lives and taxpayer money was wasted. I support the troops, but not the ones that sent them there.
February 3, 2010 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There were thousands of protestors at the 2000 inauguration. I've posted links to protests before 9/11 where cop cars were destroyed and at least one officer hurt. So this "mythical" first year honeymoon Bush had did not exist. Different reasons, but it was still not all the rosy picture some try to paint.
Sometimes it helps me to draw a picture for myself and connect the dots:
Bush enjoys popularity............. Bush makes unpopular moves/decisions (at least among many).......... Bush's popularity begins to plummet.......... protests begin almost immediately.
Now fast forward 5 years or so:
Obama enjoys popularity......... Obama makes unpopular moves/decisions (at least among many)........ Obama's popularity begins to plummet......... protests begin almost immediately.
Sounds to me like the typical American way, for better or worse.
Here's a link entitle "Tea Party Protests Rally Against TAXES" (notice the word TAXES - and the implied msg of "Tea Party" - there's your first clue) - nevertheless, this quote was from CBS news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0...
"While many of the signs at the protests blame President Barack Obama for government overspending, the people CBS News talked to were just as upset with Republicans.
"I've been a Republican all my life, but I don't think I am anymore," said one woman at the rallies."
Or, from a Huffington Post article on Tea Parties:
"I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough."
Hmmmm.... "years"..... sounds like the discontent has been growing awhile. Even before the 2008 elections, wouldn't you say?
But I don't agree totally with everything the Tea Party movement is for. I've said repeatedly I don't think the extreme top end wealthy pay their fair share. And that can be construed to mean too many loopholes or the tax rate, whichever way, I think they are finding too many ways to avoid shouldering what I (personally) believe is their fair share. Do I sound like a total true-blue tea-partier there?
February 3, 2010 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I apologize for getting long-winded and hitting the limit.
Alot of tea party protest signs are also against government-run health care and cap and trade. Whether you or I agree or disagree with any of that.......neither of those were taking place under Bush. So if the people holding those signs are there because they are upset with those prospects and want to make their displeasure heard....... why would they have protested that under Bush?
And I still see movements to have Bush tried as a war criminal, just as we've seen Clinton signs over the years. But I'm talking about the massive protests, not those who will never, ever let anything go or ever, ever admit that any single thing the opposition party ever did could ever be positive. Here's a bunch of snapshots of just Bush/Hitler signs. But they weren't during tea parties, just when Bush WAS the president.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
Since Bush "lied" (which is contrary to what the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction unanimously found - that the intelligence was flawed - and this included intelligence from other countries, not just the US) - here is a list of other people who "lied" to us, as they were also convinced about the WMD's (and many of them were privy to the same intelligence Bush saw): Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Robert Byrd, Jacques Chirac, William Cohen, John Edwards, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi...... the list goes on. I have a link to quotes by all of them stating they also believe Iraq had WMD's. Would you like to read them all?
But it appears to not have damaged any of their careers. Be sure you direct some of your "they lied" blame at them as well.
February 3, 2010 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
It is reasonalbe and logical to assume that considering how close the election was in 2000 that there would be protests, I would be disappointed if there were not, consequently there were also protests againist Obama even though he won by a landslide, they were called birthers.
I often compare Obama's current situation more to Reagan, things are a lot more comparable than with Bush, even their approval ratings up to now are very similar.
February 3, 2010 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Who else lied or did not is of no real consequence, they did not have the authority or the power to make the decision. I really don't care what anyone else said about WMD's. There was never any good evidence, we went in, kids dead, billions lost. What did we gain again? Where was our upside? The mantle of blame always falls on those that make the decisions, everything else is just passing the buck and excuses.
We had credible evidence that other countries DID have WMD's yet they were snubbed for Iraq, we had credible intel that Bin Laden was under our thumb in Afghanistan during the initial invasion yet we moved our focus to Iraq which was unrelated. Bad decision after bad decision all in the name of the war on terror. It really does not matter what anyone else said, agreed with, etc. There was one person that made the calls in the end.
February 3, 2010 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So wouldn't you also say that it is reasonable and logical to assume that unpopular actions Obama takes and gets set to take would trigger protests? Why not?
Yes... we also had Libya come forth and give up a WMD program that we never even knew existed as a result of the war. (that wasn't "nothing"). And Clinton also had Bin Laden dead to rights and let him go. Lots of missteps. By lots of different people.
That's a good point - Obama's situation coming in is probably is more comparable to Reagan's in many ways. Don't see him taking alot of the same paths as Reagan did though. I'm guessing if not for the 2nd half of TARP, auto bailouts, porkulus bill, govt health care, and cap/trade........we wouldn't be seeing these protests. Agree or disagree with those issues - but that's what's fueling it. You can only let a pot simmer on the stove for so long before it finally boils over. Turning up the heat is bound to do it.
February 3, 2010 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Besides....when it comes down to actual violence......... it was the conservative black fellow handing out flags at the townhall mtng/tea party gathering that was beaten and called racial slurs by SEIU members - you know, the ones that were all set to get the sweetheart health care deal. Oops. Looks like the anti-tea party crowd isn't all they're made out to be, either. Should I characterize a large chunk of anti-tea party folks as racist? Nah. Just some nut jobs who embarrased and didn't help their own cause any by their stupid actions.
February 3, 2010 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
I must have missed that news article about Bush and Obama killing 6 million people. You would thank that even on a busy news day some one would have reported that. Oh wait, that's because they didn't. Hitler was the one that killed 6 million Jews. Not Obama. Not Bush. You can disagree with either one but until they kill over 6 million people you have no right to compare them to one of the worst people in recorded history. I actually do not agree with either ones political views but I still do not compare them to a hate filled murderer.
Grow up people. You all voted them in. If you dislike the way they are running this country don't vote for them next time. And if you really disagree with them run for office and see if you can do better.
February 3, 2010 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
TARP might be unpopular, but I have heard mixed reactions from both sides of the aisle on whether it is a success or not, in truth I don't think anyone really knows the anwser yet.
Auto bailouts- see above
Porkulus bill- with over half unspent how can it be measured?
Govt Healthcare- last I checked there was no public option, good chance of no bill at all.
Cap/trade- uh ok, this one is just talk thus far, no serious actions.
So what policy has he enacted that is unpopular? A stimulus? We want to talk about unpopular policy the last few years? How about 2003 and medicare? How about No Child Left Behind? How about the Patriot Act? It's not just war protests I could go on and on.
I can cherry pick violent acts and criminal acts from the right too bud, what just happend in Lousiana? They have that kid on Fox News the moment he is out, how is that any better than the crap MSNBC pulls?
Your right you can only let the port simmer so long, but it's pretty damn hard to fault the guy that picked up the boiling pot in hopes of containing it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well there you have it. TARP has a mixed reaction - but it is those that are strongly opposed to it that are protesting. And those that agree with it...... aren't. As above.... the GOP rep got booed off the stage. So I'd say that's not all directed at Obama.
And I know we've discussed this before - you prefer to wait until it happens to complain about it...... I prefer to fix the brakes before I go drive the car. So, no, looks like a good chance of no public option in health care, and I think cap and trade will not make it either. Question is - would it have without public outcry? If everyone just sat on their thumbs and took a "wait and see" attitude, would Brown have won in Mass? Would some of those even within the Democratic party be hedging their votes looking at what their constituents are saying?
I never said there wasn't crap going on with some fringes on tea parties. I've agreed (well, I suggested) they ought to be all separated out and have the crap kicked out of them. Just pointing out its coming from both sides, too. You've sat here and slammed tea party folks and some of their actions. The minute I say well there are some against tea parties acting in the same manner you suddenly say I'm cherry picking violence from one side? How about just showing neither side is as saintly or has a lock on the moral high ground as it wants you to believe? Again.... we didn't focus on the fringe before...... but now we do. I'd prefer to treat the fringe like they deserve to be treated - and not letting them derail the core of whichever it is they attach themselves to is really about.
Sure there've been alot of unpopular policies under Bush. And they got protested, complained about, shredded in media, etc. Those that disagreed were vocal and protested. Those that agreed didn't.
Now we have some unpopular moves by Obama. Trying terrorists as civilians, ramming porkulus down our throats without any oversight or debate beforehand. And those that disagree are vocal and protest it. Those that agree don't. We had people that would not have given Bush an ounce of support if he cured cancer. We have people that feel the same way about Obama. Why should either group be given more or less attention than the other?
I like the Bernie Goldberg segment the other night on O'Reilly, where he ripped into far-right conservatives for just those types of views. Good for him. Wasn't on MSNBC - it was on FOX.
And there we have it. You think it was boiling before. I think it was right at the edge, and finally pushed over. You want everyone to give Obama time. Well, give the American people some time. They didn't jump up and organize mass protests the very second TARP came out, either. But that lit a fuse that finally caught fire. And when someone else came along and poured a little gas on it that didn't help.
February 3, 2010 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Can anyone say, " Revolution " or " Down the Establishment, Up The People " ?
February 3, 2010 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Nope. Not allowed. As soon as you do you're branded by whichever party is in power, and they will use all their resources to paint you in as poorly a light as possible. (And SOOOO many will be suckers for it). You're a danger to their establishment. And it doesn't matter which party is in power, you'll be treated the same.
February 3, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"And I know we've discussed this before - you prefer to wait until it happens to complain about it...... "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No that is your assumption, not my viewpoint. I'll state it again and make it clear. No one can see the future, there are some policies enacted that 1 party hates, the other loves and it is impossible to tell if it will work or not. We have wars of opinions on matters, there are not always concrete facts and data to go on. I'll restate what I said again, I don't think given the circumstances this country is in when Obama took office that we should expect real results in a year, I don't think ANYONE could achieve that, especially with our political climate the way it is. In a perfect world we could plug everything into a machine and get a clear decision, but it does not work that way all the time. Companies take risks everyday, not all are sure things, some work some don't. Some take to earn ROI. I just try to be realistic in my expectations.
"You've sat here and slammed tea party folks and some of their actions."
No I have stated the obvious, I will repost:
I can recognize what the Tea Party message is, I agree with some of their points, what I do not agree with is the way business gets conducted. When I see them putting on a convention charging $500 a head it just does not feel at like a populist event, certainly a disconnect with the average joe on that one. I also see Glen Back affiliated with them a lot, and frankly the guy is interesting at time but he also flat out lies too much for my taste. Lastly I just don't see that many minorities marching with these folks, this puzzles me because traditionally hispanics poll pretty well with conservatives until recent years, I figured on some support there but the rallies I see it is mostly white people, which combined with the idiots, and mix in a few racists, well you do the math on that one.
How hard is it to see that they play right into the hand of those that denonounce them? That lack of discipline alone in my mind puts them in the same league as the Dems and Reps.
PS I'll add in that if Sarah Palin is their figurehead of sorts, well good luck with that......
February 3, 2010 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Of course nobody can predict the future. But we vote each time based on what the candidate promises or what we believe he/she will do. But then we don't turn a blind eye for the next 4 years and then whip out a report card at the very end to decide if they warrant our continued support.
Sure - the health care bill has undergone a myriad of changes - many I would wager as a result of public support or outcry. As well it should. That's the way our system works.
I also clearly recall you saying a year ago give Obama a year. Well, it's been a year. I'm sure in 3 more years we'll hear people saying he needs one more term to turn things around (if they haven't by then). And then in 2016 we need someone with the same policies they just need more time.
One could pretty much say that about every politician and every policy ever enacted.
I think I'm realistic in my expectations, too. I didn't expect continued bailouts, I didn't expect the porkulus bill to be rammed through with no oversight (especially in the manner it was). Especially after reading complaints, also from you, about things being rammed through without taking time to get it right or have some badly needed oversight. I didn't expect health care reform in its present state to come within a whisker of passing without any input from the other side of the aisle being given any consideration or listened to. Hopefully now that Brown has been elected they'll be forced to actually sit down together and hammer out a compromise. So my expectations got shoved aside pretty quickly, ram things through before anyone can say no. Well they're saying no now. You can paint them however you want or do whatever magical math you prefer but Newsome has figured it out, and I don't give him credit for much, but I will here.
At least we agree the idiots are playing right into the hands of those that denounce them. I just wish the same people would denounce the same idiots, they're all pretty much the same. But then again we all have our own pipe dreams ;-)
February 3, 2010 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
If you are under the notion that I care one bit about either side you are mistaken, at this point I don't, I have not for awhile now. Yep I said give him a year, I also thought his focus would be the economy, how am I know to know his agenda, I know what the guy ran on, but I have no clue what order he plans to do what. At this point it looks as if his focus is finally on the economy so if stays on that path I should think we will see some results by the years end. I am of the mind that we let the right do their thing for quite awhile, and a lot more unchecked in terms of public scrutiny for a long time, and at current I am content to sit back and see what the left plans next. The one positive thing, perhaps the best thing I can say about Bush is that he made Americans pay attention again. Don't put words in my mouth, I have my limits, but I try to be realistic, you are an IT guy, you know all about project management and the scope of what this administration is dealing with is daunting to say the least. The beloved Reagan did not get much done in his first year either, in fact after year their comparison is eerily familiar to say the least.
I know who the idiots are, I know both sides are full of them, you don't have to convince me.
February 3, 2010 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I fear letting EITHER party run unchecked and "do their thing". I think now that there is at least a forced balance we might get some results, who knows. It appears that it took Mass elections to give Obama a wakeup call as to what people wanted him to focus on. Brown winning might have been the best thing that could possibly have happened for the Democratic party going forward - if they had continued to run unchecked as they have the last year I think they would have REALLY gotten hammered next election. Now I think they might have a chance. I'm reminded of the '94 elections "refocusing" Clinton. I doubt he would have gotten a second term had the balance not shifted in 94 and forced him to come back more to the center.
February 3, 2010 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But I really shouldn't be so harsh on ALL aspects of the government. Sometimes I forget how hard they work to protect us..... and the enemies they have to deal with in doing so.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=...
February 3, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I really don't buy much of the hype surrounding the latest elections, NY-21 was perhaps the biggest upset out there in terms of status quo, and it went to the Dems. The Dems still have large majorities perhaps the upcoming elections will change that, we'll see when the voters speak.
February 3, 2010 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
This is somewhat of a change of direction but I believe one of the biggest frustrations for the right of late....(maybe even bigger than last election which I think the repubs almost threw)....has been the rise of the militant left.
Right and left both have had their lunatic fringe all along. But the right over the years developed a powerful group of right wing militants that worked effectively taking the fight to the streets so to speak. This was the right of the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Full frontal assault...show no quarter. belittle, demean, insult,ridicule and certainly intimidate any body that would dare question your views. They also promoted activism. Barrage your congressmen with phone calls and e-mails. barrage other people's congressman also. Fight...fight hard...fight dirty....win at all cost. It worked well and the left for the most part coward in their niceties and their political correctness and played dead.
But somewhere in the middle of the Impeach Clinton fiasco, some on the left began to fight back. A new militant left has emerged that is willing and ready to play by the same rules that Rush used against them so well for so long. Enter the likes of Keith Olbermann....and the right does not like having to defend against it's own game plan. It's much more likely on these boards anymore to have left leaning posters that are willing to stand toe-to-toe and dish it out as well as the right does. They are not as good yet because they haven't had the time in grade.....but they are getting better...and it is driving the right nuts.
It also has put the right in the unusual position now of having to cry foul about as often as the left had to for years...and they don't like that either. JMO
February 3, 2010 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
So I think that its agreed that both parties are out to get us. I think it is time that we rise up and take back our nation from the government and the corporations. Using the courts takes to long and most judges are in the pockets of those with money. Every police force has riot gear to keep us in check. They can't stop all of us. Rise up my fellow Americans and take back what is ours.
February 4, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think the timing has had to do with the rise of the Internet and the abandonment of much of the mainstream media of impartiality. We always notice the opposition more of whichever party is not in power. Historically the media served as a watchdog - they were always there, sniffing around, ready to pounce and air missteps and shady deals underfoot. And that always worked more in the favor of whichever party was not in power. But now we have media outlets splitting down ideological lines - and you can't always trust them to truthfully air all the dirty laundry of whichever side they more closely align themselves with.
February 4, 2010 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
That is very true open_eyes. The internet can...at its best....be an extremely valuable source of information. Like I mentioned earlier today on another thread it amazes me the wealth of information that is there at the click of a mouse.
But it is also an amazing collection of worthless garbage. People that are used to asking questions and challenging the status quo.....people that don't take every thing they hear at face value...can navigate their way through the garbage. But for those that will not...or can not...put the mental capacity forward to separate the wheat from the chaff.....it becomes a fertile field to be harvested by hucksters.
And this is true no matter which political persuasion you identify with. I've heard many conservatives rail about the over-the-top statements made by Olbermann...and he does make some. But in the eyes of an old lefty like myself...he is not one bit more over the top than a Limbaugh, a Glen Beck, or an Ann Coulter....and in the case of at least two of them...he's been doing it for less time.
So when I hear conservatives going off on him for being unfair and biased, I just smile and shake my head and say.....Yea he is...and it's about time. :-)
To happy militancy!
February 4, 2010 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Finally...... it is recognized.......
My work here is done. ;-)
February 4, 2010 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What this is called is paybacks. No buddy...your work has just begun.....:-) LOL
By the way...did you read Leonard Pitts column titled Breeding Contempt in Wednesday's paper.....I wish I would have taken that tack more in the recent donnybrook on the other side. It often seems some of the people that are most critical of assistance to the poor are people that are only about one or two steps above that level themselves. One or two posters on here come to mind in that regard.
Like Pitts said...the group that hated blacks the most were often the poor white crackers that would be on the bottom of the ladder if not for the blacks they tried so hard to keep beneath them. Was a good column!
February 4, 2010 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Speaking of that "unpopular" trying of terror suspects:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/a...
Looks like things are going OK to me. People know there are extremists at each end, trying to paint one better than the other in general is nonsense. Biscuitboy has a good point, the left has started to fight fire with fire, and all those "bullies" out there are having a tough time of it. Get back to me in about 10 years.
February 4, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Gee...... I thought we WERE in the "payback" phase....... and before that the other side was in the "payback" phase.... and before that the reverse side again was in the "payback" phase.... and so on, and so on......
On side has only recently begun to fight fire with fire? Now that's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time - LOL. Thanks for the chuckle ;-)
The point all along was that trying to paint one side better than the other in general was nonsense. Paybacks and fighting fire with fire are expected. As long as people finally realize they've both been around a long, long, long time, and neither side has had a monopoly on them. They say it at times..... but I don't think they really believe it. But I think in general people are finally waking up to that realization. Another reason the Tea Party movement has so much momentum right now. Disaffected people from from a mixture of quite a few ideologies. Many are just sick of the way government in general has been run - by both parties.
No..... my work here is finished ;-)
February 4, 2010 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition.
Under Kennedy, Bill Ruder, a public relations specialist described it thus: "Our massive strategy was to use the
Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so
costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
The DNC decided to make an example of radio station WGCB and its owner, Red Lion Broadcasting, (In what became known as the Red Lion decision) “to weaken and intimidate right-wing broadcasters for future elections.”
Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings."
Sorry folks..... but fire fighting has been going on since the first cave man rubbed two sticks together.
February 4, 2010 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
In the past twenty years...who other than Olbermann.....has held a position on the left anywhere remotely close to that position dominated by Rush Limbaugh on the right? Name one. Who now on the left holds a position remotely close to that held by Beck. Coulter did have a fair rival but he got elected to the U.S. Senate.
The fighting has been going on but the playing field has hardly been level. No more level than the right-left ideology percentage split among the tea-party movement. I am pretty sick of the way government has been run by both parties myself....but I don't envision my being at a tea party in the near future unless it would be as guest of honor at the barbecue.
February 5, 2010 at 4:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If you question how poorly received I would be at a tea party reread the post made by your cheerring section.
February 5, 2010 at 4:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The point all along was that trying to paint one side better than the other in general was nonsense. Paybacks and fighting fire with fire are expected. As long as people finally realize they've both been around a long, long, long time, and neither side has had a monopoly on them.
I do understand that point...and pretty much have understood it from the beginning. The point you don't seem to want to see is that the right, while not having a monopoly, has certainly dominated the field (if not owned it) for most of the past 20-30 years. And for most of that time the right was not expressing any concern about how all this political hype was such nonsense. In fact most of the right was glorifying the arrival of the messiah (aka Rush) in places like the billboards that were all over western Kansas back then.
Now I have only been posting here for about a year and a half...well within the time frame of the rise of left wing militancy. During that time you have consistently beat the drum of both sides doing it and it being nonsense. I have no way of knowing how long you have beat that drum. I could go back and read through all of your post on here but that would only go back part of the period I am referring to and would accomplish nothing.
But I am quite certain that complaints from the right about how silly all of the one party vs the other hype is did not start in earnest until it really did involve both parties at a roughly equivalent level. That's the point I am trying to make.
February 5, 2010 at 6:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I know I have said this before in several different ways . But, I feel that it cannot be said enough.
I feel that the reason our government, no matter which political party or faction is in control or what the political party's and politicians promises made to the " PEOPLE' are,
political partys/politicians or factions either owe their allegiance or will owe their allegiance to the influences of both domestic and foreign money factions that can and do influence our whole political and governmental structure, no matter what it may be and therefore influence and control government, policy and law making process, even the Supreme Court is not immune to outside influence.
The truth is, that some time ago, our form of government became an " Oligarchy " form of government and I see no way to return our government to a " Peoples " representitive form of government .
For those who are not familiar with the term " Oligarchy " , here is the definition of " Oligarchy ".
An oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.
February 5, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Glad I could get a chuckle out of you, perhaps it will wake you up a bit, Biscuit has a pretty damn valid point about how there has been no equivalence to Limbaugh until about the 10 years. It's not payback so much eye for an eye.
I have been giving some thought about what you said earlier the Tea Party crowd:
Openeyes:
"I guess maybe the Tea Party folks should mix in a few more "Kill Obama" and hang him from nooses more often - if you want them to be consistent. But I'd rather they wouldn't. If it was up to me every person at a Tea Party protest that had a sign of that type would be quietly taken aside and have the crap beaten out of them. I wouldn't do something as mild as waterboarding. But that's just me. ;-)"
Beating the crap out of these folks is not the answer, in fact it is counterproductive. What they need to do is a take a good look right and left and wonder why there are not more minorities standing with them, why is their message attracting more of these people.
February 5, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Alss
Openeyes,
"I'd also like to point out the inaccuracy of your claim that Bush "had the monopoly" on record deficits. It's meaningless to look at it as a pure dollar figure, as we have discussed before, any economist will tell you it is a percentage of a countries GDP that is more meaningful. I mean a deficit that would be considered mild for us would comletely bankrupt smaller countries with smaller GDP's. I'd consider a $100 billion deficit tiny these days but 100 years ago that would have ruined the country. We had much higher levels pre-1920 and in the 1940's.:"
Wonderful, glad we can finally agree on that, I'll be sure to refer to this again next time to chime in about Obama's spending. Matter of fact, I believe you denounced ME bringing this up in an earlier thread when I mentioned it. I'll do a little digging and get back to you.
February 5, 2010 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Which field is being "dominated"? Talk radio? Absolutely by conservatives. Print media? I would say more left than right. Web sites like DailyKos, MediaMatters, MoveOn, HuffingtonPost are visited far beyond any comparable conservative sites. Cable or broadcast media? Take away FoxNews and I'd say it definitely leans left. And all the studies support that as well. So we have one field out of 4 that is being dominated by the right, and people are crying fowl. Well, Fox dominates cable, but in pure terms of number of outlets you certainly have more to choose from if you prefer the liberal point of view over a conservative, or prefer to have the percentage of favorable coverage heavily tilted in one direction, such as the % of negative stories of the 2008 election candidates carried by 3 of the largest cable networks as I posted on another link.
So it looks to me like you are simply talking about a popularity contest in our current timeframe. Absolutely Rush enjoys a huge following and popularity. But a year or 2 ago hardly anyone had ever even heard of Beck. When you talk about the "rise" of the militant left to counter their popularity, perhaps you are confusing the demise of Air America with its founding. It was actually started 6 years ago, in 2004. It was just recently that it folded operations, not rose to prominence. Don't like Rush? Fine! More people should have tuned into Air America. It certainly had a "militant left" agenda. I can't help it that it didn't make it. I'm not in charge of who or what enjoys the most popularity at the moment. Who dominated for 20 years before that? And for several decades before that? And before that? Kennedy & Nixon both obviously felt that there was a strong and powerful set of voices out there that were contrary to their agenda's. Who was the "Rush" of their day?
February 5, 2010 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Those tea party folks sure don't look very good at all with all those ugly signs at their convention. A sea of white guys with signs that sure look racist to me. The only thing missing seems to be white hoods. One of their first speakers kept referring to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, with a definite stress on that middle name, over and over again. Now that's credible. This is how you manage a political party? These tea baggers will never get over it; they're only out for one thing and that is quite obvious. It's all banging the bushes and not enough sit down and discuss problems in a civil manner.
Open_eyes, don't jump off your screen and start in. I've already read your foregoing post.
February 5, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, create, go right ahead. Anyone carrying racist and disrespectful signs deserves to be ripped into. Have at them and throw in an extra kick from me as well. Fools that are nothing but detrimental to their cause.... if they are even truly there at all for what the cause is meant to be. But it looks like you prefer to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Maybe occasionally you should look at tea parties from the point of view from some none anti-tea-party media which won't go around and cherry-pick out what they want you to see? I've posted links to black entertainers at tea parties, black organizers, black people that have had racist slurs thrown at them & beaten by anti-tea party folks......... so how come some of this honest & fair media doesn't cover them?
Just wish the same people doing the ripping now had felt the same way when all the disrespect was flowing the other direction ;-(
BTW - Obama used his middle name at his swearing-in ceremony. How dare he. Didn't he know that was politically incorrect? ;-)
February 5, 2010 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Here's an interesting read from the point of view of one of the black entertainers I mentioned. You won't see this on MSNBC ;-)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/0...
"I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radical socialist agenda.
Unfortunately, my deleted email box is littered with numerous messages expressing the following:
"You are the dumbest self hating f****** n***** I have ever seen!" ........
As I said, I am a singer, songwriter, entertainer and columnist using my gifts to spread the message that conservatism is best for all Americans. Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them.
As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. At one rally, a sign read, "Lloyd Marcus for President". These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration. Race is not an issue with them. They have deep concerns for their country.......
The grand finale of the Tea Party Express Tour ...... C-Span posted my performance on YouTube. Shamefully, C-Span had to delete the hate-filled racist comments posted by Obama supporters in response to my performance. Why do so-called tolerant and compassionate liberals think it is OK to freely use the "N" word when referring to blacks who escape the "liberal plantation"?.......
There's more if you care to read the entire article - I posted the link. But it looks like the hate is flying both ways. You can agree or not with his characterization of "Obama's radical socialist agenda", but is your characterization of tea parties and the universal love supposedly shown by all who oppose them fair? Should I lump you in with those directing the hate at this guy? Or should we look at the nutjobs on both sides for what they truly are....... and get back to discussing the message and the point?
February 5, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
While you continue to try and make everybody believe that the tea party movement is neither right or left...you apparently chose to overlook that the letter that triggered this thread in the beginning was a tea bagger celebrating the republicans taking a seat the had been held by the democrats for fifty years. Yea,,,that sounds real non-partisan to me. Let me see...what democrats have the tea baggers endorsed.....now what republicans?
February 5, 2010 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I said they've drawn people from mixed ideologies, and both parties. Of course they are more people from the side that opposes Obama's policies, which would be predominately conservatives. And that includes some Independents who voted for him.
And apparently you also chose to overlook the tea party where they booed the GOP rep off the stage.
If you want to keep discussing it maybe you could show enough respect going forward to drop the embarrasing tea bagger connotation. I'm starting to lump the people who favor that term in with the the crazy fringe who are truly hypocrites.
February 5, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I call them Lukert's lackies.
February 5, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I said they've drawn people from mixed ideologies, and both parties"
Not not really, not at all, start naming Democrats that support them or that they endorse, I'll name some republicans, then we will compare lists. I'll say odds are it will somewhere around 20-30 to 1. I'll guarantee you this, they start attracting crowds of minorities to their rallies this would all end, but they seem complacent in their ignorance to ignore the racist element within them.
Your post about the Black entertainer I could flip everything and add in Ted Nugent, goes both ways, but what you cannot deny is that this group is overwhelmingly white and drawing parallels to the KKK is not a reach at all. They want credibility they need to police themselves better, and figure out how to reach out to minorities.
"BTW - Obama used his middle name at his swearing-in ceremony. How dare he. Didn't he know that was politically incorrect? ;-)"
Did he repeat several times and over with all the annunciation on the middle name? Sounds pretty pathetic to me, attack the policies, not the man himself, that would be racist.
February 5, 2010 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Web sites like DailyKos, MediaMatters, MoveOn, HuffingtonPost are visited far beyond any comparable conservative sites. Cable or broadcast media? Take away FoxNews and I'd say it definitely leans left."
Have not really delved into web traffic lately, but the right is making great strides, dominating Twitter as of late, I'll wager it is almost a dead heat now.
How can you just "takeaway" Fox News? They are a juggernaut in cable news lol. That is like saying take all the white people out of Emporia and ethnic minorities would be the majority lmao. With CNN ATTEMPTING to become a non biased news source I have no doubts conservatives dominate the cable news scene. I'll wager that 3/4 of outlets you named currently do lean right, my 2 cents.
February 5, 2010 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
In terms of the Tea Party Movement, I’m confused.
In terms of this uprising, why is it the people in those states that receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes are so loud and vocal?
According to the link I am sharing (below), for every dollar Kansas pays in taxes it receives back $1.12. In the same category of benefactors are 31 other states. Sounds like a nice ride.
Only one state breaks even (Rhode Island), with the big bill ultimately being paid by the residents of Florida, Texas, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada and New Jersey. In other words, 17 states carry the financial burden for all the others.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research...
For me, this just seems very unbalanced. Wouldn’t it make more sense for states like Kansas to find ways to trim their own expenditures and become more self-reliant, or at least be more appreciative?
I just don’t think it's wise to bite the hand that feeds you. Kansans would be crying if DC cut off their allowance.
February 5, 2010 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
eucharistandcannibis......love your handle. Also appreciated your remarks. It been pointed out before but the right always manages to just conveniently ignore it or claim it's some how biased data'
open_eyes
I didn't chose the name tea party....nor did I begin the practice of calling them tea-baggers. In fact they started calling themselves teabaggers until it's other meanings was pointed out to them. When I used that word (teabagger) it was because it is one hell of a lot easier to write than...A lady that has identified herself with the movement that calls its self a tea party...or some other bulky phrase. It's other usage never entered my mind until you brought it up so who has the dirty mind and lack of respect.
Perhaps you would prefer I say a tea partiest...well prefer all you want. When I say tea bagger I mean some body that identifies with the tea party movement...and that is how I will continue to refer to such people. If others have dirty minds that is not my problem.
February 5, 2010 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
If you have a word that would work as well as teabagger that I could use to describe a person invovled in the tea party movement....I will (if it feels good and works well) consider its use.
But to be real honest, I had never known about it's other definition until it was pointed out on these boards just a few days ago. So I take real offense at your automatic assumption that my use of the word is just an example of my hatred for amd desire to discredit your compatriots. They do a good enough job of that themselves. And seriouslyfolks the same applies to you. Whose making biased statements based on their own prejudices now?
February 5, 2010 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
ECONOMY LESSON:
In 2007, the federal government of the United States collected in $313B in taxes from California. Annually, California receives back 78% on the dollar, and in 2007 that amount equated to $244B. In total, California graciously donated $69B for use as the federal government saw fit.
Projected for 2010, California will have a budget deficit of $35B.
$69 billion paid out and never seen again. $35 billion in the hole. 69. 35. Hmmm. Seems like if California wasn’t being so gracious, they wouldn’t be in debt.
Now, to be fair, Californians are aware they are obligated to contribute to programs such as national security, and helping states/regions devastated by national disasters. Additionally, not to mention realistically, California wants to help states that are having a run of bad luck. But, how long does a state like California flip the bill for the others that don't live up to their end of the bargain?
February 5, 2010 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
The constitution guarantees the right to peacefully protest
Even those teabaggers with their extremely low IQ's have that right
America is the land of the free and the teabaggers are fun to watch
Baggers go to tea parties and complain out loud about life
All that they are doing is exorcising their rights
Government is wasting money is one of their main gripes
Greedy welfare mothers who waste our taxes on baby wipes
Every one else is lazy and they take more than they need
Retreat back to their farmhouses and cash that subsidy for their
Seed
Always pointing fingers
Rarely accepting blame
Every body else are thieves...I'm just getting paid
Someday we will look back and laugh the them
Losers with small brains
Obamam is our President
White republicans go insane
We have to take that into consideration before we get all technical and everything we say goes over their heads.
February 5, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Can I say the TP people for short? Teepies? Or just TP? Or just Teabags? How about PP for party people? The writer of this article calls them tea party groups. Too much to type. TPG's, tpg's. I can type baggers faster than I can TPG's. What if they form a party? Will they then be called the Tea Party Party?
For such an angry group they have a cute name. (Sigh), now we need a nomenclature.
February 5, 2010 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
lol
February 5, 2010 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
L.L
Lukert's Lackies
February 5, 2010 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And then he chastises us for calling people names. Some people just never quite get it I guess. When you have nothing else I guess name calling is what you have to use.
February 6, 2010 at 3:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
While watching CNN video reports from Nashville this morning, I see that many baggers are in costume. I remember some of those here in Emporia when they had a group activity? Don't they like who they really are? To be fair, however, I didn't see any hoods.
In Nashville yesterday, one man dressed as a Minute Man spoke of "too much government." He said that "we" expect the government to do two things only -- fight our wars and protect our borders. Then he emphasized that the second one "ain't happenin' "
I wonder if the border in question was the Canadian border, would they have as much of a problem? Then again, back on 9-11, the other hijacking was interrupted when a terrorist was captured on the Canadian border by a very vigilant border guard.
Today, ANOTHER tea party group from Nashville is planning to interrupt the convention with their own ideas.
I love a good dog and pony show, but my question is this: If they want less government spending, take a look at kaolemos's poem above. Also, they want federal money to be all given back to the states so each state can spend as they see fit.
Uh oh. Does this mean no more federal tax withholding and more state tax withholding? Or what? Just asking.
How long before those same baggers would begin screaming because they can't get services? How long before they scream when their kids can't get student loans? Just asking.
Oh yeah, for about 90 bucks, you can get a tea bag necklace. 90 bucks for a tea bag hanging on a chain!!!
Something to remember about the original Boston Tea Party...that was loose tea. No bags.
No bags.
Hang loose!
February 6, 2010 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
To me the Tea Party sounds strangely like the same old Conservative Republican Party line, " Less Government ".
Well, " Big Government " isn' t the real problem. The real problem is the outside special interests that are influencing our government. It will not make one bit of difference what size our government is, the outside influencing of our government will still be there. The only way to get to a " Government of the people, by the people and for (all) the people ", is to end the outside, corrupting influence on our government.
February 6, 2010 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If the recently formed, so called " Tea Party " advocates and members want to get rid of the corrupting influence of outsiders on our government, such as, wealthy individuals, Large wealthy Corporations, Businesses, Labor Unions, etc.. Both domestic and Foreign. then they can really liken themselves to the minute men, those who participated in the origional " Boston Tea Party " or those colonial patriots who wanted and fought for a fair, representative,self government for all of the people and not for just a few people.
And not just dress like " Minute Men " or " Boston Tea Party " participants at a meeting or rally .
February 6, 2010 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
If the people don't ever question the government it will never be a government of the people. If people don't demand that the government be run efficiently and responsibly it will never be a government of the people. The corrupting influence on the government isn't only on the outside of it. It's ludicrous to think that once one enters politics they are some how not still a human being that is flawed and perfectly capable of being corrupted or a corrupter. Many think that it's the party that they belong to that makes the politician above reproach and this is just as stupid if not more so.
February 6, 2010 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Exactly methusla. The tea party group (how's that open_eyes) is nothing more than the old hard line conservative republican party with a new name....nothing more. Look folks the emperor has new clothes!
How about that republican bill to release the banks from any obligation to repay their bailout loans? What about that?
February 6, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Many think that it's the party that they belong to that makes the politician above reproach and this is just as stupid if not more so.
I completely agree. In fact right up there with wealth and power, I also credit the influence of party as one of the major sources of the corrupting influence in American politics. But that includes all parties. The third parties are just as bad just with a more narrow agenda.
February 6, 2010 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, biscuitboy, the bill by the republicans to release the banks from paying back any bailout moneys, is a perfect example of a wealthy, corrupting influence on our government.
seriouslyfolks, exactly which government should the people question, the so called, " peoples' government in D.C." or the the real " government that is governing ( dictating) the so called (peoples") government in D.C.", namely all the outside corrupting influences I mentioned in my previous post ?
If anyone doesn' t believe their is an outside, private governing body, that is governing, controlling or dictating policy and law making of the so called " peoples " government in D.C.. Then you are truely naive and in a world all your own.
February 6, 2010 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I never said there wasn't outside influence, methusla, and I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I was just expanding on your post. I meant to clarify that in my post but didn't for some reason.
The reason I advocate for many many "3rd" parties is because the two we have know that they can do whatever they want without question because you have nowhere else to go. If you do question a party it will always be the one that isn't yours and that party won't care if you question it because they weren't getting your vote anyway. Our current government is like a menu with two choices, I'd like to see our government buffet style with many choices.
On another thread I posted links to many different political parties and no one showed any interest. A lot of people say the are not partisan and are dissatisfied with their party but it's all just talk. “A pox on both your houses!”
February 6, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sorry, seriously, I misunderstood your post. And I should have phrased my last sentence in my last post as follows, " Then, people are truely naive and in a world all your own."
Sorry for the misunderstanding .
February 6, 2010 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
No problem. I meant to clarify that in my post at 8:41.
February 6, 2010 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
It sounds to me like you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. I hear you say you are dissatisfied with both political parties....and I hear you criticize democratic politicians and policies...but when push comes to shove you will always support a republican candidate or policy over a democratic alternative. When it comes down to it.....you line up on the republican side of the spectrum every time. Most of us do the same thing. open-eyes certainly does and so do I. So what makes it different when you do it.
You like to accuse me of being a communist because you say I sound like one......well you sure sound a lot like a republican to me ole buddy. And like methusla said earlier so do the teabaggers.
February 6, 2010 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
By the way.....why should I worry about calling people who are lining up behind the tea party people teabaggers when they themselves are selling tea bags on a chain for ninety dollars. If it's alright with them to identify with a tea bag...then it's alright with me to call them teabaggers.
February 6, 2010 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Since I have posted on these forums I have never supported a Republican candidate. The only candidate that I have ever mentioned supporting and who I voted for was Chuck Baldwin who was the Constitution Party presidential candidate. I have said repeatedly that people should not vote for Republicans. You are projecting on me things that you do. I like some ideas and ideals that Republicans have but it doesn't matter what they say because they are liars. Basically I like where they start but they never end up in the right place. With Democrats some of what they say sounds good but they are also liars and I really fear where we would end up with them.
February 6, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Sarah Palin will be speaking tonight at 8 p.m. central. CNN is carrying it. Gonna watch? This should be very interesting.
One woman from the Tea Party Express explained that not all the groups agree, but the way it works is that each group has its own ideas. Then they all get together to support each other.
What?
Sounds like the Tower of Babel to me. There might even be something in Revelations about all this.
February 6, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I will accept your response in good faith except for one thing. "You are projecting on me things that you do." Please explain and please give specifics.
I am pretty up front about voting for democrats and was an ardent supporter of Obama as well as a contributor. I have said this on these boards a number of times. I generally agree with democratic principles. I however do not always think they do as good a job as I would like and I feel strongly about that at this moment. But I always feel they are a better bet than their republican counterparts.
So please explain to me what you meant by that statement and give me examples.
February 6, 2010 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I have no examples that come to mind right now and I'm not going back through all your post to find any. I should have said "I think you are ...." instead of "You are ......."
February 6, 2010 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
Can we all agree that we weren't "thrilled" that our tax dollars were used to bail out the big banks? That said, if these big banks were to fail, the catastrophe to our economy (and the world economy) would have been unspeakable. Period. In a capitalistic society, as said as it is to say, we are endowed to Corporate America. I'm reminded of a nursery rhyme; "London Bridge is falling down... and we all fall down." Yes, if the "big dogs" fall, we all fall. If a small bank in small town America fails, the local residents will feel the pinch, but the pain would soon pass.
Now that Corporate America is stabilizing, and repaying their debt, the President has made numerous announcements that the earnings will be used to revive Main Street. As it should be. Just as we learn in Kindergarten, we must be patient and take turns.
Now, it will be the responsibility of the United States Congress to reinstate banking regulations that when originally removed created this financial chaos. Laws and regulations, while at times seem to be anti-business, in reality do protect us all from the few who are out to unfairly make a buck without regard for the welfare of us all.
February 6, 2010 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Sarah Palin will be speaking tonight at 8 p.m. central. CNN is carrying it. Gonna watch? This should be very interesting."
Is is going to be a Pay Per View? What I don't get is how they are charging 350 to 500 to get in yet it is getting picked up for free? Sounds like the elite get to go be "a part of the movement" while the rest stay home, very grass roots indeed.
Speaking of Palin:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2010...
If she heads this way it is the beginning of the end for her, she was already a VERY polarizing figure, this just makes it worse. I hope the GOP has the balls to see that she cannot pick up the independents needed to gain the presidency and nominates someone with a real chance, else it will be no competition.
February 6, 2010 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
My projection of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election.
Obama (D): 43%
Romney (R): 38%
Palin (I): 19%
Similar to 1992 (actual #s pulled from '92 election results), Republicans will tear themselves apart, giving the election to the Democratic candidate. Romney (possibly Huckabee or Pawlenty) will capture the moderate and reasonable Republicans, while Palin will walk out of the GOP convention with the ultra-conservatives. Democrats, and independents disgusted by the GOP infighting and unwillingness to compromise, will vote for Obama.
February 6, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/20...
LOL!
February 6, 2010 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I went to the grocery store earlier this afternoon to BUY groceries with money I earned from working and paying taxes. While there, two young clean-cut looking guys...both also working at the store to earn a living and pay taxes...told me how much they liked my bumper sticker.
I was a little surprised because it has been on the truck for over a year now. It says..."Had Enough...Vote Democratic". I guess there is hope for humanity yet. :-)
February 6, 2010 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yeah, your not partisan.
February 6, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Posted by biscuitboy a couple of hours ago.....
I am pretty up front about voting for democrats and was an ardent supporter of Obama as well as a contributor. I have said this on these boards a number of times. I generally agree with democratic principles. I however do not always think they do as good a job as I would like and I feel strongly about that at this moment. But I always feel they are a better bet than their republican counterparts.
Where in that statement does it say I am not partisan.....You are the one that's always claiming to be non-partisan...not me. Please try and pay more attention in the future!
February 6, 2010 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
To one degree or another, is not everyone partisan?
The question should be are we capable of setting aside our bias leanings in order to look at an issue fairly from all points of view? Are we capable of actively listening, setting aside emotion and name-calling, being understanding and reasoning, and able to compromise? Even further, can we find the strength within ourselves to vote against our own convictions so long as it benefits the great good of mankind?
February 6, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I for one have proven that I am capable of setting aside my bias leanings in order to look at an issue fairly from all points of view. Two examples, medical marijuana and the smoking ban.
February 6, 2010 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Very well said eucharistandcannibis. I would love to say that I lived up its lofty aspirations....I try...but I fall far short. I am certain that statement will find widespread support on these boards...mostly from people that try less and fail more than I do.
February 6, 2010 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I'm an extremist....... on issues on both sides=)
February 6, 2010 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
And, apparently, do we have a sense of humor? :)
February 6, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Not a lot of humor 'round here. I used to try to be funny but people got tired of it. I miss those days. You should have seen it. It was fun.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
enjoy
February 6, 2010 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Seriously,
I admit there have been times where I have been unjustly hard on you, for that I apologize. Your humor is appreciated, but there are also times when it probably be best to let the thread denigrate a bit before injecting your humor. Myself I feel that one should not try to derail a thread until at least some pertinent discussion has taken place=)
February 6, 2010 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
point well taken
February 6, 2010 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Posted by gg (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What would you call two morons blabbing about nothing in a public chat forum?
Answer: seriouslyfolks and biscuitboy
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So................ you're for or against burglary? You can be honest.
In biscuitboys defense, I'm the only moron here.
good times, good times
February 6, 2010 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Can't really blame the grass roots folks for being upset about the cost of the convention:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
And on a side note the key note speaker apparently feels it appropriate to "politically shift" when one of her own does something to offend her:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
I'll say one thing for the right, they sure do know drama!
February 6, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
No....I won't let you take the rap alone.....gigi identified us both as morons...and morons we remain.
Those were good times. methusla's tale of woe on the subject makes me laugh even today.
February 6, 2010 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
ah crap, second link should be:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
perhaps even more interesting is why she is not backing the Special Olympics chief as well:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmit...
Hypocrisy? YOU BETCHA!
February 6, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I gotta bring some of that classic seriouslyfolks back, it's been way too tense around here not to be confused with two tents.
To keep on the subject of politics ..... blah blah blah
February 6, 2010 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I really don't understand how anybody can take these people seriously. Meanwhile we hear nothing about the moderate republicans that could bring something of substance to the table.
February 6, 2010 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
When we hear about the moderate Democrats( the blue dog Democrats) they are painted as traitors. Being a moderate isn't seen as a good thing any more it seems. IMHO
February 6, 2010 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Moderate republicans are called RINO's not traitors. I like the moderates on both sides, they seem to have the best grasp on matters. It is to bad that the extremists on each side brand them.
February 6, 2010 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But to the tea partiers the moderate republicans are also seen as traitors......maybe the two should get together and form a traitor's party. But in my world, the blue dogs aren't democrats...but republicans wearing democrats clothes. And they are not very moderate republicans either in some cases. IMHO
February 6, 2010 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, if you'd like the names of some Democrats and Independents who have joined the Tea Party movement, I'm not sure but I'd guess Bill, John, Bob, Stacey, and Amanda might be as good a guesses as any. I'm talking about voters, not politicians. I think one of the "elements" that are out there is an anti-incumbent movement that I see on both sides of the aisle. Not that all of those are throwing in with the tea party movement but some.
I guess my take on using a derogatory term once you know the meaning is pretty much like a 6 year old that uses words without knowing the meaning. Once you point it out to them..... if they continue, then they're acting like a child (especially if they claim that it's "just easier"). I guess if someone voted against an agriculture bill, for instance, I could call them "corn-holers".......... and say it's not my fault if you have a dirty mind ;-). Pu-leeze. Ilfill, Anderson Cooper, some prominent media figures have had enough class to publicly apologize after discovering the meaning attached to the term.
I'm really glad to hear "attack the policies, not the man himself". Too bad nobody was brilliant enough to come up with that term before Obama's inauguration. I'm also dissapointed you used the term "the MAN"....... too bad it can't include women. Some of the "policy attacks" I've seen here have been something along the lines of she dresses like a slutty flight attendant, she wore makeup on the fishing boat, her parenting, what she named her kids (they are all named after Alaskan Bays), her husband, her recreational pursuits, etc........ during the "policy" attacks I've never quite figured out which of her names are usually repeated with the annunciation the most - "Caribou" or "Barbie" - LOL
And I see I have to correct biscuitboy once again for ascribing another false statement to me. "When it comes down to it.....you line up on the republican side of the spectrum EVERY time. Most of us do the same thing. open-eyes certainly does.....". How many freaking times have I said here that I do NOT think the top-end wealthy pay their fair share of taxes? I even stated I definitely break with both Republican and tea-party mantra in that respect. And I've said it multiple times. (PS - I voted for some Democrats in both 2004 and 2008 - just not Presidential). Well, when we assume....... no, wait, can't even say that, given how many times I've stated I definitely split with most Republicans in that respect.
February 6, 2010 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, it IS "It is to bad that the extremists on each side brand them". Seems like that is what is happening to tea party folks.
BTW, I did some searching on Ted Nugent. Now there IS a guy that shoots his mouth off alot. Mostly regarding illegal immigration. But all I could find on racism was apparently in 2003 he said everyone should speak English or something like that and a concert cancelled on him. Which he in turn won a lawsuit against. "Despite his win, Nugent still feels like damage has been done. "It was heartbreaking," he tells Rolling Stone. "I won, but I didn't win anything. [The jury] threw out the defamation-of-character thing, and that to me is what it was all about. I was called a racist because I was quoting one of the Funk Brothers, who I identified in the quote as my revered hero."
Well he says outlandish things all the time but in the frame of racist comments how you equate that with "f****** n****" is hard to figure.
Every group needs to police itself better and figure out how to reach out to different groups/minorities. Perhaps all the folks sending nasty racist emails to Lloyd Marcus need to figure out a way to police themselves better as well. Funny how he's right in the middle of it and doesn't see the same things that those who refuse to attend any claim. He says all the flack he's getting, nasty emails, blogs that get pulled, etc, are coming from those who oppose the tea parties, but I don't hear much complaining about the nasty racism there. I would say that drawing some parallels to the KKK for the people that email him calling him the n word and so on isn't a stretch at all either. So apparently we have to draw some parallels between the KKK and all anti-tea-party people. I mean that's where the flak directed at him is coming from. If "neutral" CNN had a reporter that got caught trying to cherry-pick through the crowd and paint them all based on a few idiots..... what do you suppose the view from non-neutral media orgs is going to be????? I won't deny that its overwhelmingly white - does that automatically make it racist? Given the fact that whites are about 70% of this country pretty much any group that has a representative cross-section of people is going to be overwhelmingly white. If 50 % of whites and 100% of blacks vote for Obama.... guess what...... his voters would still be overwhelmingly white. It's a conservative movement. And blacks and most other minorities vote overwhelmingly democrat. Yes, you're absolutely right - black conservatives are a minority any way you look at it. As big a number as black liberals? No way. But they ARE there. And according to them.... they get far worst treatment from the tolerant left than they do the conservatives. And definitely at the tea parties.
But hey.... apparently condemning them just as bad as the ignorant at the tea parties..... is too hard or long to type ;-)
February 6, 2010 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Hey, I wonder if the Tea Party/Baggers allow " Burglars " of " Stuff " in their midst ?
February 6, 2010 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There's probably some rapists and escaped convicts hiding out in there too. Just like at an anti-Bush rally. Oh, and don't forget some dope dealers.
It appears some apologies on here are......... meaningless.
February 6, 2010 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I guess when your six-year old comes home from the playground and is throwing around the n-word without knowing what it means (because he heard it on the playground - possibly even from some black kids using it to each other - you know, Jesse Jackson's 'term of endearment' and all that) - it's nice to know you'll tell him it's ok to continue to use it because it's much shorter to say than "African-American". Heck, it's even easier to type than "black" - that takes 5 different fingers, the n-word only takes 4. Well, whatever's easiest.
February 7, 2010 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What about the tea bags on the gold chains they are selling at the convention then.....I suppose we are to call them tea party emblems. Give me a break!
And I'll tell you the same thing I told another poster...you might not have to repeatedly go through your little spiel about how you don't always back the republicans if you didn't sound so much like a republican.
Besides...what are you ashamed of? I haven't always voted for a Democrat either. I don't belong to the Democratic party. Sometimes, (like now) some Democrats make me sick to my stomach. But I never claimed to be non-partisan because I lean heavily in their favor.
That statement is not hard for me to make. But in typical open_eyes fashion you waste a lot of ink telling me how wrong I am for saying you vote Republican EVERY time. Well excuse me...I erred in using every...just like others err when they claim I am a democrat....I should have said 99 per cent of the time. And now I can't wait to hear you tell me how wrong I am in saying 99 percent.....it's actually only 98.
For somebody that makes a lot of sweeping generalizations you sure love to nit-pick what every body else says. I will make another sweeping generalization for you. I'll bet that ALMOST all posters on here assume that you are republican because you sound just like one.
February 7, 2010 at 4:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your 12:40 a.m.post doesn't even deserve a response.
February 7, 2010 at 4:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I won't use an exact figure so as not to give you something else to nit pick......but a very high percentage of the time when you criticize something or somebody it is a Democrat or Democratic. A similarly high percentage of the time when you praise something it is Republican. You therefore spend much--much--much more time praising Republicans than you do Democrats.
Well pardon me then if I say you sound like a Republican....but you do!
February 7, 2010 at 5:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Setting here spending hours defending the Republicans and the party that sells tea bags on chains at their convention......then saying but I disagree with them on taxes for the very rich...doesn't immediately turn you into an impartial observer....at least not in my book it doesn't.
February 7, 2010 at 5:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
Here is a more complete version of the post you were so concerned about earlier...a post incidentally that was addressed to seriouslyfolks....
posted by biscuitboy........."I hear you say you are dissatisfied with both political parties....and I hear you criticize democratic politicians and policies...but when push comes to shove you will always support a republican candidate or policy over a democratic alternative. When it comes down to it.....you line up on the republican side of the spectrum every time. Most of us do the same thing. open-eyes certainly does and so do I."
You left out some pretty relevant stuff. Stuff like the fact that it wasn't addressed to you....only applied to you in the regard that your bias was obvious...and that I also included my bias....(although not very well...should of identified it as democratic). You also chose to omit that it was really talking about siding with one ideology or another. This is what you chose to pull...."...you line up on the Republican side of the spectrum every time.....open_eyes certainly does....."
These are some pretty important omissions made by somebody that was crying over inaccuracies made by another.
February 7, 2010 at 5:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
In the interest of accuracy, this is actually what you chose to pull........"When it comes down to it.....you line up on the republican side of the spectrum EVERY time. Most of us do the same thing. open-eyes certainly does.....".
February 7, 2010 at 6:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Question:
If you wait until half-time to eat your hot wings, are they still called "hot wings"?
February 7, 2010 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
No,,,I doubt it......probably by then it would be called yuckey.
February 7, 2010 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Another question,
Why is Ranch Dressing called Ranch Dressing?
Never heard of a vegetable ranch.
February 7, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"that takes 5 different fingers, the n-word only takes 4"
All typed words only take 2 fingers for me.
Hunt .................... peck
Hunt ....................... peck
Hunt .............................................. peck
hunt ................ peck
hunt ........................................................................ peck (heh heh, Qs are hard to find)
And the award for most posts in a row goes to .................... biscuitboy! ;-) (please note the little winking smiley face guy) ;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
February 7, 2010 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If a person raises cattle they are called a cattle rancher.
If a person raises pigs they are called a pig farmer.
?????????????????????????????????????
February 7, 2010 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
That just proves my theory ............................. cows love ranch dressing.
February 7, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
A good rancher know to spray his pasture with ranch dressing before putting the cows out there. That makes for some really fat juicy delicious cows. Mmmmm good.
February 7, 2010 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
A really good rancher knows to use regular ranch dressing not fat free. Cows don't care about cholesterol because they are just going to be eaten any way.
February 7, 2010 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Would that make the cows "pasteurized"?
February 7, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Why do we put "Horseradish" on our prime rib?
February 7, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Sorry, just thinking abut what kind of munchies to have during THE game of the day.
The Washington Capitals vs. Pittsburgh Penguins @ noon.
GO NHL!
February 7, 2010 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Speaking of " Ranches" . There is/was a world famous raunchy, ranch in Pahrump, Nevada, known as the " Chicken Ranch " .
February 7, 2010 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
If my comment about buglars and stuff, offended and angered you I appologize. My comment was intended to inject a little levity into this thread and not intended to offend, anger or insult anyone . I guess my attempt at creating some smiles or grins, failed miserably . Sorry !
February 7, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Does horseradish come from horses?
I agree seriously folks...every word I type only takes two fingers....one on the right hand.....one on the left hand.....
Hey I guess I really am bi-partisan after all :-)
February 7, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
CHICKEN RANCH?
HOW MANY CHICKENS could a chicken plucker pluck if a chicken plucker could pluck chickens?
Answer:?
February 7, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And so we have come full circle in our discussion.
The answer is cold naked wings.
February 7, 2010 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
I don't think horseradish comes from horses, but I've heard horse apples do.
That would NOT be tasty on a prime rib!
But it's ok for this thread, agreed?
February 7, 2010 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve
At the " Chicken Ranch " in Pahrump, Nevada, you could " Pluck, ( so to speak ) as many " Chicks ( Chickens ) as you had money to pay to or stamina to " Pluck " ! And you didn' t even have to worry about the feathers .
February 7, 2010 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Hey, I' ve heard the term " Horse Feathers " . Are there also " Horse Pluckers " . If not why ? We do have " Horse Radish " ?????? If horses have feathers, would they be classified as " EquiFowl " ???????
February 7, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
methusla,
My bad, I thought we were talking about hot wings!
I heard of the ranch you are talking about. Seems like a while back the Feds seized it for non-payment of taxes and ran it for a while before going bankrupt. Must have had a very slim profit margin.
February 7, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
nuff fun, got to work. have a good sunday everyone.
February 7, 2010 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
WTF man? I was talking about Obama, of course I would say don't attack the man, if talking about Palin of course I would say don't attack the woman. To be honest I really don't care what politicians do in their personal lives. If we had a President that could balance the budget, keep people at work, etc I could care less if he/she wanted to worship the devil and have 9 wives so long as he/she did their job. But for some reason a lot of politicians cannot separate their personal and private lives like so many do in the corporate world, and a lot of that is the fault of the people, it seems at times that we try to elect avatars of ourselves rather than just get someone with the talent and guts to get the job done.
Regarding Ted Nugent, I can't link to the clips I would like to, they result in my post being deleted, all I can say is that he is one, there are plenty more, which is the point of what I was trying to say.
Consequently, I wonder how those Tea Party folk feel about their figurehead being married to and advised by known secessionist? American as Apple Pie.
February 7, 2010 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
ugh, above :
" personal and private lives "
should read:
professional and private lives
WTB edit button
February 7, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Well, if you'd like the names of some Democrats and Independents who have joined the Tea Party movement, I'm not sure but I'd guess Bill, John, Bob, Stacey, and Amanda might be as good a guesses as any. I'm talking about voters, not politicians. I think one of the "elements" that are out there is an anti-incumbent movement that I see on both sides of the aisle. Not that all of those are throwing in with the tea party movement but some."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa whoa there, the problem here is that you said
"I said they've drawn people from mixed ideologies, and both parties"
No they have not. They endorse ultra conservative candidates, their voting base is %80-%90 far right independents are not polling well with them, liberals are not polling well with them, they are attracting far right conservatives in droves but everyone else not so much, and with the crap going on at the convention I'll wager things get worse especially with their new new figure head crowing things like:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
You make them out to be a diverse group, they are not. If they were we would see a diverse following and diverse candidates. I followed the converntion this weekend very closely, even watched Palin make her speech, kept on open mind to try and get a better feel for this group and I came away just shaking my head going wow!?!? It's not the media that is responsible for the general dislike of this movement, it's their own fault, and if they can't see it, well, they ..... just.... don't.... get ..........it........
February 7, 2010 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"dresses like a slutty flight attendant," Late Night talk show host opinion, not indicative of everyone as a whole. Consider the source.
"she wore makeup on the fishing boat"- My wife is an avid outdoorswoman, she saw this and immediately laughed, want to see countless other woman criticize this too? or are they bias? When your hunting and fishing looknig good is the last thing you care about LOL, thier is a big difference between "wannabe's" and those that are, by staging things like she obviously does she defaults to the former, which is why a lot of woman are turned off by her.
"her husband"- Known secessionist, and by default an advisor, so according to her "palling around with terriosts"=bad but sleeping with a secessionist is OK, ROFLMAO! You don't find that a little amusing?
Lets hear some more please
February 7, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
While the crowd chanted "Run Sarah Run".......
For the life of me I don't know why this group seems to be so bent on electing a president that is no smarter that they are. The last thing I want is a President that's as dumb as me....and that's why I don't want Sarah, or any of the rest of this tea party crowd that I have seen so far.
February 7, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
" I won't deny that its overwhelmingly white - does that automatically make it racist? Given the fact that whites are about 70% of this country pretty much any group that has a representative cross-section of people is going to be overwhelmingly white"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try and explain this for you. Even given the statistics and probability you mentioned there numbers are still nowhere equal to what you would expect. Hell watching the convention, and coverage on Fox and CNN I was hard pressed to find any number of minorities mixed in.
Now lets add to this that this group is predominately white, is constantly comparing a black guy to Hitler, implying that he is associated with terrorists by over annunciating his middle name, and to top it all off, questioning his citizenship? And these are things that are not taking place behind the scenes; these ARE main points with this group.
Make an educated guess, as a minority what would you think about this group? It's not rocket science, it's PR 101 and it's elementary to see why they are perceived as they are. The problem? They don't care to change that so again, what does that say about them? How many times need they shoot themselves in the foot?
February 7, 2010 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's ok, methusla - I know you were just trying to inject some humor. I was just pointing out that some people on here have apologized for use of a certain term after they found out what negative connotations are attached to it..... and then continue to use it. Makes the apology ring kinda hollow, don't you think?
Call a tea bag exactly what it is. They suggested mailing tea bags to Congressmen - describe it exactly how it is. Tea isn't generally sold from stores in "bales" like hay or "loaves", like bread. I guess if I bought a fishing jig from a black man, I would refer to it as what it is - a jig. But if I started referring to him as "the jig man", or "jigaboo"....... and someone pointed out to me that term (even if I meant it innocently) - was a racial slur....... I would certainly refrain from using it from that point forward. Even if I had to (God forbid!) type longer words to replace it.
Sorry, but when I am mentioned specifically in a post.... then I feel it applies to me, whether that was the original direct or not. And I'm absolutely certain you would do the same, biscuitboy. I'm not "ashamed" of any of my views. The only thing I'm ashamed of is how many politicians that I have voted for on both sides of the aisle have done once elected. But I'm pretty much just as ashamed of the ones I didn't vote for either. I've never said I'm right down the middle (even though I'm a registered Independent). I've repeatedly said the majority of my leanings are definitely on the conservative side. I make no bones about it. That obviously will put me in the Republican camp on many issues much more often than the Democratic camp. I simply correct your statement that I ALWAYS line up with the GOP.
Goodoleboy, "and a lot of that is the fault of the people, it seems at times that we try to elect avatars of ourselves rather than just get someone with the talent and guts to get the job done." - I couldn't agree more.
February 7, 2010 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually it was a poster here that mentioned she dressed like a slutty flight attendant. I also see just about every single female I know put on makeup before they go out and play volleyball, basketball, softball (and I always say "why"?????) so I'm saying why is it such a big deal? Especially if she probably knew ahead of time reporters were going to come out there?
It's a conservative movment - and some people who are not that conservative but disaffected with Obama's policies and/or politics in Washington as usual. What it will morph into.... or how many of those who don't adhere to closely to the main ideology which is coming out of it - is anybody's guess, but I also see it as putting itself forward as more and more ultra-conservative as it progresses. I think it definitely took more of a shift that way with the current convention. Up to this point they've not been very focused - as O'Reilly said the other night, he's not sure if it's "a hobby or a movement" yet. And the majority of minorities simply don't hold ultra-conservative views when it comes to voting. So you're not gonna see a huge upswelling of support from them. The point I am making is that THAT alone does not make them a racist group.
February 7, 2010 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Todd Palin left that party quite a few years ago - if you like to point out that politicians are allowed to change their minds, maybe you should keep up on events a little more currently.
Biscuitboy, I can't decide if I want someone smarter than me in Washington, or someone too dumb to go along with politics as usual and play the same old games - LOL. Me of little faith these days. ;-(
February 7, 2010 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Especially if she probably knew ahead of time reporters were going to come out there?"
Right there is every reason not to, right there is the reason my wife said she thought she was fake. "looking pretty" for the cameras makes her whole outdoors persona look trivial. Most women I know who are avid runners and outdoors enthusiasts do not wear make up, it is a hinderance, most athletes I knew avoided it as well before activity simply because it made them break out badly. Must be some prissy crowd you grew up with.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/2...
Check that out too: found that pretty interesting that people support the majority of what it encompasses, just not stimulus as a whole, could politics have anything to do with that?
February 7, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW - SOME members of the Alaska Independence party have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party's platform. They are a "state's rights" party, and their main emphasis seems to be returning all federal lands back to the state.
Given the practice here of taking some idiot racists and branding them as representative of the entire Tea Party movement I can see how some members of any party are what you ascribe to the group as a whole. So I guess the fact that some liberals are sending racist hate mail to black tea party members automatically makes all liberals racist. Or I should rephrase it to say that since all the racist hate directed towards black tea party members is coming from liberals............. nah. Can't say it. That's too much of a stretch. Even for me ;-)
February 7, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Some of those "prissy" college athletes I played with won national championships. But I don't understand women when it comes to makeup anyway.
Serena Williams is currently the worlds # 1 ranked women's tennis player, and she says this:
"Use water-resistant makeup during workouts. "I wear it during all my matches," says Williams, who admits she never steps onto the court without M.A.C Waterproof Power Point Eye Pencil in black ($13.50; maccosmetics.com) and Estee Lauder Illusionist Waterproof Maximum Curling Mascara ($21; esteelauder.com)."
She's so prissy. I never understood it either, myself. I guess makeup back in your day wasn't as technically superior or designed for active people like some of it is now ;-)
February 7, 2010 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
For the amount they are paying her to sell that product I would wear it.
February 7, 2010 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
" Or I should rephrase it to say that since all the racist hate directed towards black tea party members is coming from liberals............. nah. Can't say it. That's too much of a stretch. Even for me ;-)"
Could it be black liberals sending them this?if so could that be racist? It might be slang=)
February 7, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I have a serious (although maybe dumb) question. It's not rhetorical but a real question.
How does one become a registered independent...in fact...how does one become a registered republican, or democrat, or communist for that matter? Is there a form that is filled out...do you pay dues....what are your rights--privileges--and responsibilities? I...to my knowledge....have never registered as any thing. When ever I fill out a form that asks I always say independent. Does that then make me a registered independent, or does it take more? And who does the registering for independents?
All of this sounds very vague and inconsequential to me...kinda like declaring yourself a pedestrian or a motorist. What difference does it make? And how easy is to switch from one to another?
February 7, 2010 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
You don't want to spray on too much ranch dressing on your pastures and have the cows slip and fall in it. That ain't good. A buddy of mine and a dang fine semipro rancher told me one time early on in his career he over sprayed the pasture and one particularly tasty cow slipped and fell and was just covered with ranch dressing and all the other cows started giving the marinated cow strange looks and licking their chops and what not. I bet they were envisioning their pal wearing a giant hamburger bun. They had the dressing covered cow backed into a corner when my buddy showed up and got it out of there and took it to the cow wash and hosed it off. That cow never quite fit in after that. It a tough job, being a cow. I'm just glad that their are folks willing to do it.
February 7, 2010 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, biscuitboy, that is a good question and I have no satisfactory answer, except this. It is my understanding that in order to register to vote, you are required to fill in a or mark a " Party " when registering to vote. I never really understood why this is a requirement to vote. I always thought the main requirement to vote was to be a verifiable citizen of the country, State, County or community in order to be able to vote on anything and when you declare a Party on your voter registration form, does that mean, when you do vote, you get a certain/particular " Party " ballot to use to vote and why ?
I was always under the impression you had the right to vote, no matter whether you were, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Liberterian or had no particular Party belief, loyalty or philosophy.
February 7, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Depends on the state, I believe some allow you to register as an independent, some you simply have to not register with any party.
http://www.newcitizen.us/voter.html
Here's a difference between us, biscuitboy: When you said (referring to Democrats) that "I ALWAYS feel they are a better bet than their republican counterparts." I'll never say that about any one party. I try to look at each candidtate individually and on their own stance and record. Sure, obviously my ideologies will match closer to one than the other more often than not. But not always.... and sometimes (no, strike that - OFTEN) - it unfortunately comes down to a "lesser of two evils" vote. And which issue at THAT time that is foremost in my priorities.
Actually I heard a quote the other day I liked:
"Liberals actually have some good ideas from time to time. They just don't know how to pay for them" ;-)
February 7, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
methusla and biscuitboy- I always thought the party affiliation was mainly for voting in the primary elections of one party or the other,but not both.The parties seem to get your home mailing address really quick!
February 7, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, All you have to do is go to the county clerk and say you want to register to vote or update your voter registration information and declare your party on that form. When I first registered to vote I didn't declare any party and I wasn't allowed to vote in the primary so I updated my voter registration saying I was a Republican so I could vote for a friend in the primaries. I haven't updated it because I know a registered democrat who complains about the amount of junk mail he gets. One thing I can say about being a registered Republican in this part of the country , I get a bigger choice of local candidates to vote against in the primaries and I still get the same choice as democrats and independents in the general election.
If you are registered democrat you get to vote against the democrats who are trying to get a nomination from the party. You don't get to vote against the republicans who are trying to do the same.
If you register as Independent you can only vote against independent candidates during the primaries.
If you don't declare any party affiliation you don't get to vote in the primaries.
February 7, 2010 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
From the Voter Registration Application:
Box 7 — Choice of Party
In some States, you must register with a party if you want to take part in that party’s primary election, caucus, or convention. To find out if your State requires this, see item 7 in the instructions under your State.
If you want to register with a party, print in the box the full name of the party of your choice.
If you do not want to register with a party, write “no party” or leave the box blank. Do not write in the word “independent” if you mean “no party,” because this might be confused with the name of a political party in your State.
Note: If you do not register with a party, you can still vote in general elections and nonpartisan (nonparty) primary elections.
I forgot to add that there actually is a party called the Independent American Party.
February 7, 2010 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I wonder if you could register as a tea bagger yet. Sounds like they are forming a party. That should be fun to watch.
February 7, 2010 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The Kansas Voter Registration Application, does have a provision for marking your party affiliation as follows, Republican, Democrat, Independent or No Party affiliation.
February 7, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
A party just isn't a party without a ranch marinated bovine.
February 7, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Thank You one and all. I now know a great deal more about party affiliation that I ever have and yet I still don't feel like I know much because there doesn't seem to be much to know.
I guess then I am a registered Democrat because I did vote in a democratic primary a few years back. But if I am understanding all of this correctly it is only really of any importance for voting in primaries. Since apparently you can change it pretty much at will except for a period prior to a primary. In fact, I have heard of that being done where people declared in a party they didn't normally affiliate with just so they could vote for the weaker of the candidates in that party's primary.
It at the least does appear to be a little weird to me and not at all in keeping with a free and open right to vote. But I really do thank all of you for the information.
February 7, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
No problem. Any time. Glad I could help.
February 7, 2010 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
In a way, I should chastise myself for saying always in the same vein as you chastised me for saying every. As I just said, I don't think of myself as a card carrying democrat (though apparently I am)....and always identify myself as an independent when asked. But one doesn't have to get up too early in the morning to see that I certainly lean heavily in favor of the Democrats.
This has actually gotten more pronounced in the past 30 years or so as social conservatism tightened its grip on the Republican party. My likelihood to vote Republican diminished directly proportionate to that rise. It is possible that if the tea party group siphoned off the ultra-conservative base of the party and it returns back to what it was during the Eisenhower era I could once again become a true bi-partisan. In fact I consider Nixon a much better president than Watergate will ever allow him to be recognized. Especially in the area of foreign policy.
But the point is, at present, no matter what I call myself, the Democrats can count on my vote with a fair amount of certainty. Based solely on what I hear you say on these boards, I believe, at present, no matter what you call your self, the Republicans can with a fair amount of certainty rely on getting an appreciable number of your votes. That is what I meant to say.
February 7, 2010 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And biscuitboy, I totally respect and agree with that. One of my biggest problems with both parties is.... however.... if left unchecked, it seems they always get too full of themselves and carry it too far. If you don't check the Republicans they'll deregulate everything too far and to our demise. If you don't check the Democrats they'll regulate us to death (just for a couple of easy examples). Maybe we should say that we're both going to vote for one party most of the time but always with the caveat that we hope the other party gets enough votes to stay in power and act as a check and balance - just not from us - LOL ;-)
However..... when I am very dissatisfied with the current party's shenanigans..... I have and do cross the line at times.
February 7, 2010 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes.....I actually believe one of the worst possible scenarios (not the worst, but one of them) is when either party controls the Presidency and Congress. one of the best is when you have a near even split in Congress, with a few real independent swing voters in the middle. Then the parties have to work together or accomplish nothing. But if that happens the blame should fall equally on both parties.
February 7, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Of course that sounds good in theory...but a quick look at our present situation suggest it doesn't always work so well in practice.
February 7, 2010 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Tea Party = A joke!!
February 8, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Two guys walk into a building, you'd think one of them would have seen it. = joke.
February 8, 2010 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
2 girls one teacup?
February 8, 2010 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Former Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo told an audience on Thursday at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House."
"His name," Tancredo said, "is Barack Hussein Obama."
Tancredo delivered the opening keynote speech at the convention where several hundred Tea Party conservatives have gathered.
"So the race for America is on right now. The president and his left-wing allies in Congress are going to look at every opportunity to destroy the Constitution before we have a chance to save it," Tancredo told the delegates. "So put your running shoes on. Because I'll tell you, I've heard we need a revolution. My friends, we already had it. We lost. I mean, what happened to us in that last election was a revolution."
____________________________________________
So basically one the of keynote speakers who was chosen because he represents the people of this movement believes that all the uneducated people of America are the reason why Obama is in office. You truly can't fix stupid..............
February 9, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm glad you brought that up, goodoleboy, because I thought what Tancredo said was one of the most dangerous things I've heard in a long time. Even more dangerous is the amount of applause he received for having said it. There's a reason why he put emphasis on the Hussein part. He thinks he is generating anti-Arab sentiment.
These people actually believe that President Obama was elected by black people only. They don't believe that whites voted for Obama too; they don't believe that much of the money for his campaign came from white individuals as well as black ones. Is that why the Supreme Court voted for reinstating corporate America's right to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns, because they're afraid they won't be able to muster enough money of their own by themselves?
With his comment about returning to literacy for voters, Tancredo and his ilk, the Tea Klux Klan, want to take us back to the days before Civil Rights. They are more than the lunatic fringe. These people are very dangerous.
February 9, 2010 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
All you have to do to challenge that ludicrous statement is look around you. At least Tancredo should have a fair idea what stupid looks like....I'll bet he shaves every morning.
February 9, 2010 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Tancredo's statement create....certainly not yours.
February 9, 2010 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If Tancredo is the sort of people that the " Tea Party " wants and is made up of, then I have only one thing to say, " God help us ".
This site my be of interest. http://www.tomtancredo.org/
The following is just a small snipit from this site.
Tancredo - the Congressman from Littleton, Colorado - likes to pretend he's a breath of fresh air in Congress: Not afraid to tell it like it is! A fighter for the little guy! Does the right thing, no matter what the cost!
But the truth is: He's just another pathetic tool who abandoned his integrity to become a permanent, mediocre fixture in Washington D.C.
February 9, 2010 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I quoted it to get one point across, Open Eyes has made a it a point to try to show that people of nature are not at the heart of this movement. He is dead wrong, these people are extremists and they are well aware of message they are conveying, if not then why have people like this opening the convention and Sarah Palin outright lying onstage(when she was not looking at her talking points on her hand, and teleprompters are bad right?)
February 9, 2010 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
How many of you are for us starting another War and invading Iran? According to Mrs. Palin that is what Obama should be doing. Simply amazes me.......
February 9, 2010 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
The last time I checked..the Barakmiester got about 98% of the Black vote. That vote is normally about 50/50 in any other election. If it had gone 50/50 in this election then McCain wins by three million instead of losing by 3 million. Race was an issue in the last election and as you have pointed out accidentally it was not practiced by the white voter but by black voters many of whom are now sorry at they way they voted.
And just how many Democrats fit the Description below. Lets start with Obama and work our way down..down..down (your words not mine.)
"He's just another pathetic fool who abandoned his integrity to become a permanent, mediocre fixture in Washington D.C."
The statement below did not come from Palin and you know it . The word on the street is that Obama may hit Iran sometime before the election to get the "war" vote.
"How many of you are for us starting another War and invading Iran? According to Mrs. Palin that is what Obama should be doing. Simply amazes me......."
Some of you people have serious problems with facing reality. First of all, Sara Palin must be the right person for the job otherwise you guys wouldn't be so afraid of her. Three years from now she will know that much more about the world. And the good news is that she will have a less distorted view than does Obama. After all, we gave a Black a chance and 3 years from now it might be time to give woman a chance.
February 9, 2010 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
And the statement below...She puts 4 notes on her hand and thats the best the Dems can do is to ridicule her. Lets be real and remember when the Obama teleprompter messed up and the wrong words were there and low and behold the great orator read them because he did not know what words were supposed to be there because he never looks at it in advance.
Did you listen to the speech the other day when he so incorrectly talked about a "Corpsman". He was actually incoherent during that speech. Or how about his "shout out" to the guy who got the "Medal of Honor" from him who actually got the medal of freedom. The mans an idiot and it will only keep surfacing more and more as time goes on. I don't want him to fail America because we are all effected by that. However, I hope he keeps failing himself everyday so all the world will continue to laugh at him as they do now.
And last but not least...be a man and point out exactly what Sara Palin lied about in her speech. I'll bet you can't.
"if not then why have people like this opening the convention and Sarah Palin outright lying onstage(when she was not looking at her talking points on her hand, and teleprompters are bad right?)"
February 10, 2010 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
There you go .....American Communist at work again. Bush finally surfaces and speaks up.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/coll...
February 10, 2010 at 12:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
geoffryem
Wrong again. According to all the data I found your 50-50 split by black voters is nothing but a pipe dream. In modern history.....all of the 20th century to present.....black turnout for democrats has been at 80 to 90 per cent. Here's a link to just one of those sites.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additio...
Your 50-50 figure is probably close if you consider all black votes cast since emancipation since blacks heavily supported the party of Lincoln (the emancipator) up until around the beginning of the twentieth century. By the time Lyndon Johnson pushed through Civil Rights legislation it was heavily tilted towards the Democrats where it has remained ever since. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.
"The word on the street is that Obama may hit Iran sometime before the election to get the "war" vote."
That statement really doesn't even deserve comment except to say that the word on the street around here is that you don't know what you are talking about......does that make it true.
As to my being afraid of Palin...let me just say your right I am scared to death of Palin. Because I am scared to death there just might be enough uneducated nut jobs.(if the shoe fits wear it) out there to put that lunatic in office. And that thought scares me to death
But that fear is not limited to Sara Palin (wouldn't want anybody to accuse me of Sarah bashing).....I would be scared to death of anybody you supported for office. Not because I am afraid of you....but because I wouldn't want somebody you liked running my country. Hell, I wouldn't want somebody you liked shoveling pens in the stockyards....I have more respect for cattle than that.
February 10, 2010 at 4:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I must correct one statement. Black voter turnout has not stood at 80-90 percent Democrat for all of the twentieth century. It began a steady rise from being predominantly
republican at the beginning of the twentieth century until reaching it's current high level democratic level in the middle of that century. It has remained there since.
February 10, 2010 at 4:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Here's a better link proving your black vote data wrong geoffrey ole buddy....
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck...
February 10, 2010 at 4:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
It is probably a good bet that most of the rest of your wild assertions are just as inaccurate as your first one. If that's true then you sir are the one that has a difficult time facing reality.
February 10, 2010 at 4:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Sarah Palin stood there and berated Barack Obama for his use of Teleprompters while reading scribbles from her hand. I don't know how much notice Sarah Palin had to prepare for her speech to the tea baggars but I heard about it several days before hand.
Three scribbles, "energy", "budget cuts, tax” and “lift American spirits" were hastily jotted down on her palm to remind her what to say. She has been spewing those same lame themes for over a year. Why does she need to write them on her hand. Her eyesight is amazing in that she can see Russia from her house, so why not have a staffer stand at the back of the audience with a few 3X5 cards with drill baby drill scribbled on them?
People want JOBS! People want OPPORTUNITY!. People know that it is THE ECONOMY STUPID!
I don't care if they have to write that on their hands or if they read it off a teleprompter, as long as that is the focus.
Someone needs to let Sarah Palin know that "Energy" companies have been raping Americans too long now so we don't trust the "Energy" message. Also, "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" is one of the reasons our "BUDGET" is broke. Finally, Sarah Palin can "LIFT AMERICAS SPIRITS" by going back to Alaska and staying there.
To all the great conservatives who believe a President shouldn't use the teleprompter, all I have to say is..,Ronald Regan. You betcha!
February 10, 2010 at 4:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geoffreym (anonymous) says...
I don't know, try this link. Oh yea, I to are educated. I got all the way thru the 8th grade magna cum loaded. Life's sure been a struggle since then or at least I thought until I came across this site. Now I feel like all my education has been well worth it. Where might I have been without it? I guess I would have been a Democrat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
February 10, 2010 at 5:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
geoffreym,
Kansas is a red state and it always has been that way
I know why that is you morons, but I just don't want to say
So many live below poverty giving the rich man what he craves
Says a lot about Red states high taxes for the low wage slaves
Masses living hand to mouth are forced to pay more tax
Your hard earned money used by rich people scratching each others backs
Blue jean wearing lawyers talking simple so you will vote
Understand he will change into his suit and make fun of your goat
Today you call yourself tea baggers as you hold up misspelled signs
Tomorrow you will have to close a school so the rich can keep dressing fine
February 10, 2010 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The Washington Times....now there is a nice non-partisan site.
By the way...Karl Rove being President Bush's brain pretty much explains why President Bush's administration had so many problems. With Rove and Dick (chicken-hawk) Cheney calling the shots I actually feel sorry for Bush.
Considering the distance the former President has placed between himself and both those brain pans since leaving office it appears he must feel sorry about it also.
February 10, 2010 at 6:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Incidentally geoffreym
If you had read the story rather than just looked at the pictures you would have learned the Bush billboard was bought by a group of local businessmen.......the former President had nothing to do with it.
But I guess Sarah Palin looks good in pictures to huh?
February 10, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
koalemos, very nicely said, basically the same thing I have been saying for quite some time, only I did not say it quite as eloquently as you .
geoffreym, I and everyone should be afraid of any " Fool " who touts, campaigns or stumps for starting a " War " with any country, without weighing the consequences of such an action on their own people or country . Hell, we are already engaged in two Wars already and these are already costing the American people more than they/we can afford to pay. And for what, just so the " Fat Cat, Greedy, Wealthy of the USA may become " Greedier and Wealthier " !
Anyone who will see that the real " War " is and should be against those who are and have been in the process of undermining and destroying the people of their own country, namely, the USA and its people, these are the people who will garner my vote. There are plenty of " enemies of the people " right here in the USA, who by the way, call themselves Americans and yet are " Hell Bent " on looking out for noone but themselves and their greedy interests.
February 10, 2010 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
geoffreym
"And last but not least...be a man and point out exactly what Sara Palin lied about in her speech. I'll bet you can't."
LOL! You picked the wrong person to want facts from, so here, chew on some of these for awhile:
http://www.politifact.com/personaliti...
I've said it before I will say it again, I fear her because she hurts what little freedom we have to choose in this country, she gets the nomination Obama wins a 2nd term, hands down, she can't carry the independents which is all that matters anymore.
I can back what I say with fact and logic, everything you just said was torn apart before I even had a chance to retort, you should seriously do some research before making claims here, else just go join the Tea Party and let me know how that works out for you.
February 10, 2010 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"But I guess Sarah Palin looks good in pictures to huh?"
Biscuit,
Actually I think she has been looking a bit more wrinkled lately, I'll wager some work will get done in the next 2 years so she can keep the "hot republican chick" thing going. You know how those beauty queens are.
February 10, 2010 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent post, goodoleboy!!!
About Sarah Palin, geoffrey says, "Three years from now she will know that much more about the world. [ya think?] And the good news is that she will have a less distorted view than does Obama. After all, we gave a Black a chance and 3 years from now it might be time to give woman a chance.'
OMG, just to know that people actually use this kind of logic to make voting choices makes me want to upchuck my lunch!
And geoffrey called Obama an idiot?
Who Dat?
February 10, 2010 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Yea that comment about made my head explode, speaking of not being distorted and headlining the Tea Party LOL. Better yet was the remark about 3 more years to gain knowledge, if she does not have the basics down by now,wow.............
February 10, 2010 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I can think of only one word to describe Sarah Palin. " Bufoon " !
February 10, 2010 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Who is more the fool? The fool or the one that follows?
February 10, 2010 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Get rid of nancy pelosi!
Im tired of giving people money to sit on their bum.
Im tired of Democrats still blaming bush.
Im tired of Stimulus (tired of throwing money at problems and expecting it to get solved)
Im tired of knowing my taxes are going to go up and knowing that by the time I retire I may be 75 or 80 years of age.
Im tired of global warming.(Its bs and how can 100 years of measurements mean anything in the grand scheme of things)
Im tired of people who want to get rid of waterboarding and guantanamo bay ( Seriously the terrorists dont torture... they just kill by sawing off heads with dull knife (Yeah remember those videos years ago) )
Death penalty should always be available for idiots who act up in prision.
Im tired of the 2 party political monopoly system.
Im tired of Teresa walters telling me I cant have smoking in my privately owned business.
Seriously nonsmoking section or not you walked into that business in the first place (RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS)
Im pro-choice to a point.
Im tired of black people complaining about racism (SERIOUSLY A BLACK PRESIDENT)
Pro-legalization of Marijuana. (gateway arguement is retarded seriously, if they are going to try a harder drug then they are going to try it whether you like it or not)
Seriously my mom dad uncle and many friends have tried this drug and never tried the hard stuff.
February 10, 2010 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Also we elected congressmen for a reason, to read bills and vote for the way the public wants the vote to go.
Emphasis on READING BILLS EVEN IF 10000+ PAGES LONG.
SERIOUSLY speed readers for a bill that is spending 1trillion dollars? hahahahhahahaha that should not be speed read. wow.
February 10, 2010 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy
The one that follows a " Bufoon " is known as a " Bufoons, Bufoon " .
February 10, 2010 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Interesting sentiments Pocketkings, I can agree with some of them.
February 10, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
methusla said "koalemos, very nicely said," Reference the poem.
Which message. horizontal or vertical? (=^_^=)
February 10, 2010 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
koalemos
Both !
February 10, 2010 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
That's why I always liked you!
February 10, 2010 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
geoffreym,
More detailed analysis of Palin's latest fabrications:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/tea-...
Still amazes me that after all this time and crowing about her knowledge on matters pertaining to energy she still does not even know what her state produces. Love to here a response, I realize it's hard to argue with facts but I really am curious how people can defend this person.
February 10, 2010 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good link, goodoleboy. Thanks for posting. Somehow, however, I don't see geoffreym reading or even clicking on that link. He seems to be one of those hit-and-fun guys because they do this just for the rise they get from the real people. They're not really interested in facts. Sadly, they vote.
February 11, 2010 at 5:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
These were my two favorites from that factcheck website re: Sarah the Truth Stretcher:
■Palin repeated her oft-stated, greatly exaggerated claim that Alaska produces 20 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply. The actual figure is just under 2.9 percent.
■Her claim that the state spent "millions" dealing with ethics complaints against her is one that has been disputed. Her own tally is less than $2 million, and an Anchorage newspaper said most of that was salaries of state workers who would have been paid whether or not Palin was being investigated.
Apparently, as long as you pump these and other stretched facts from the very red lips of a perky, pretty gal in great square eyeglass frames and a nifty red jacket, she can push almost anything down the throats of the gullible and the needy, or as Joe Biden says, "the disenfranchised and the frustrated."
During the campaign, two of the hottest selling wardrobe items were square framed eyeglasses and short red jackets made out of that shiny fabric.
Yeah man, that'll run a country.
However, according to Larry King program last night, 55% of the people still don't approve of Sarah. Famous guest Vice President Joe Biden says, and I'm paraphrasing, that Sarah is an engaging person, "yeah, I like her but some of what she says if so far out there." She appeals to those who feel disenfranchised and frustrated.
Larry: "The Tea Baggers?"
Joe Biden: "Yeah, the tea baggers."
Aside from that, if Larry and Joe can say tea bagger, so can I.
February 11, 2010 at 6:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well create, as the birthers proved, if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again....no matter how ridiculous it might be......a lot of those that are looking for somebody to blame for all of their problems, are going to start believing it.
What scares me at the moment is that there are a lot of people out there with problems that are looking for somebody to blame them on.
It would be real easy sometimes to just let some of the stupid things people say go without challenge. But every time we do we run the risk of another person starting to believe the crap that's being put out. And that then becomes one person closer to seeing Palin as President and the teabaggers running the show.
February 11, 2010 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You know I was real close to discontinuing the use of the teabagger phrase until a couple of people made such a big deal out of it the other day....Oh Well!
February 11, 2010 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
IF she runs, those facts will come out and be corrected, in this day and age everything she lies about will come back to haunt her. I really thought when signed onto Fox she would start being more pragmatic and really make an effort to convince people that she is a capable leader. Boy was I wrong:
"Sarah Palin has upped her national profile in recent weeks, but a new poll shows that the extra attention hasn't done her any favors. In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, the amount of people with a favorable view of Palin has dropped to it's lowest point ever recorded in the poll. And more than 70% now say she's not qualified to be president.
Palin's numbers don't improve much when just Republicans are asked to give their opinion of her, the poll found.
The Post reports just 45% of conservatives consider Palin qualified to move into the Oval Office. Last November, 66% of conservatives said she was qualified.
Only 37 percent of Republicans have a "strongly favorable" view of Palin. Among all Americans, her overall favorable/unfavorable split is 37/55, the lowest it's been since ABC and the Post added her to national polls in Sept. 2008, when John McCain made Palin his runningmate on the GOP ticket.
"Although Palin is a tea party favorite," the Post reports, "her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey."
Sounds like her Tea Party involvement and her mouth are working wonders.............
February 11, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Who needs to destroy her when she is doing a fine job herself
February 11, 2010 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
We can only hope your right.
February 11, 2010 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I guess my problem is how much I believe the old axiom about a sucker being borne every minute is true. History is filled with examples of how otherwise normal intelligent people have fallen under the spell of some huckster and then the world has paid the price.....and that's just in politics. I won't even mention the other even bigger arena.
February 11, 2010 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Among Democrats and independents, assessments of Palin also have eroded. Six percent of Democrats now consider her qualified for the presidency, a drop from 22 percent in November; the percentage of independents who think she is qualified fell to 29 percent from 37 percent."
On second thought we should really thank the tea party folk, thank them for shedding light onto her. The more exposure she gets the more she seems to hang herself. By all means, keep her going on FOX, keep her speaking, I think it's the most patriotic thing the far right has done in awhile.
February 11, 2010 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
You have said before that since most of the posters are conservative you take the otherside to keep things balanced. Read the last several dozen posts and you will clearly see that the vast majority of the posts are left leaning if not far left. How about you try to balance things out now? I'm going to go pop some popcorn and get ready to watch and see how the discussion goes. It's good to have moderates to balance things out.
February 11, 2010 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I would try but that would be fundamentally wrong Seriously, we don't need politicians like her in either party running for any office. My arguments have nothing to with the right or left, they have to do with common sense and keeping idiots out of office, and apparently as time goes on more people are starting to see her for what she is, on both sides of political spectrum. This thread was authored by a conservative, we have seen quite a few ridiculous claims made by conservatives within it, and Palin is very relevant, in that she is one the figureheads of this movement and she only continues to feed the partisan divide in this country. It's not like we just hijacked this thread and said lets berate Palin, it's relevant and on topic. I'll gladly debate anyone here that can prove me wrong on the claims I have made about her, no one yet has brought forth any kind of credible counter debate.
February 11, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
One more thing, as mentioned above, I think she hampers the chance that we will get a quality conservative nominee for President, meaning that I want a good conservative candidate, I have nothing wrong with the conservative platform and will gladly send them my vote if they put forth a good candidate I can get behind. Only the true liberals want her to run, knowing that it ensures democratic control of the White House, and to have a lock on that is never a good thing.
February 11, 2010 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Good posts goodoleboy.
February 11, 2010 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Very well said goodoleboy. My fear is not of somebody running against Obama. Put a viable candidate in there and let the best person win. But by viable I mean a person who is remotely well equipped to be president. A person who has the qualities needed to run the worlds most prominent democracy.
I have been shown nothing to date to make me think that Palin is that candidate....So my fear is not of her running....my fear is of her winning. I would not make that same statement of any number of conservative candidates that could run in her place.
February 11, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I believe you're right about Palin scaring off a viable conservative candidate. They sure don't have anyone now. I'd like to see a good one too because maybe then I can get back to being a bit more moderate again. I like to use logic, not partisanship, but man oh man, Republicans, show me something, Please.
February 11, 2010 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (Gwen Larson) says...
moved to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
February 11, 2010 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )